If the Drug War is Failing, Where did all the Cocaine Go?

[bit_pattern]

Legal drugs have higher usage rates than illegal drugs, even in underage populations http://sadd.org/stats.htm.

Yes but the use of legal drugs has been normalised over centuries of use so it is not a valid comparison. The fallacy your making here is assuming that regulation would lead to normalisation - which couldn't be further from the truth. In Switzerland, one of the observed outcomes of heroin trials was that it medicalised addiction and instead of addicts being seen by impressionable young people as romantic outlaws, heroin is now widely viewed as a "loser drug". And, take tobacco control for another example, one of the weapons used most effectively in reducing smoking rates was to denormalise that mode of behaviour. Again, none of this would be possible if these drugs existed outside of the legal framework of society.

There is one thing you simply cannot achieve by pushing drug markets underground and that is stop people from doing drugs.

 

[neversickanymore]

< Law enforcement has tried and failed to> prohibits drug use <and instead have infinitely added significant problems to, almost overwhelming failed to address the problem associated with, and failed to prevent, slow, or reverse the practice of >

fixed that for you pmoseman

That drug use is a pass time activity?

have you used drugs before.. not judgment i just need to know if I need to answer this in a I must have chosen to use in a diffrent than you or I need to address another stereotype.

You have no evidence showing drug use is not associated with crime, yet marijuana use has been found to cause an increase in property crime and crime for profit.

I remember these statistics from the study. But how do we conclude what will happen with legalization off a study that was done in prabition. These are complex social models and the difference between a controlled legal drug market and a black market have way to many variables for us to base the effects of one to predict behaviors of the other. Pluss let us not forget that these increases were damn low. I wonder to if people would be as quick to do non violent crime on grass if they were no longer already looked at as criminals by the law.. lot of variables there..lots.

by using it to prove child molestation should be legal

in this case, and all sexual offenders, i think that incarnation is the best course. Not because I am more against sexual offenders, though I am personally as well as the fact that it a real crime, but the real reason is that incarceration and re offend statistics back this approach up wholeheartedly.

Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime.

>source<

Rearrest within 3 years- from 50.4% to 66.7% for drug offenders

>source<

You have presented no objective way of comparing your long list of harmful activities and picture me as some sort of prude; it is just a random list and

I am not attacking you. I am merely presenting my point of view. If I didn't respect you i would never have chosen to debate you over this. I think it is necessary and important to take into account the standers on which we base decisions on the legality of something. If it can be shown that the legal status of one thing is being judged by different standers and scales then anther then there need to be explored to prevent "witch hunt" practices from occurring. If there is a difference in the standards, then we just need to explore whether the difference in the standards upon witch they and their legal status are deferentially determined are legitimate or illegitimate.

your characterization of me is wrong.

Not to incite you at all but just to point out that as a member of a class of people who has faced awful classifications, stereotypes, persecutions, inequality, arrest, humiliation, exploitation, confinement, and demonetization to name a few. Im sure you will understand if I am not the most sympathetic for uncomfort generated by the need to expose people to one of the flaws upon which the justifications of such actions have been reached.

What has the drug war accomplished?

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

Yes but the use of legal drugs has been normalised over centuries of use so it is not a valid comparison. The fallacy your making here is assuming that regulation would lead to normalisation - which couldn't be further from the truth. In Switzerland, one of the observed outcomes of heroin trials was that it medicalised addiction and instead of addicts being seen by impressionable young people as romantic outlaws, heroin is now widely viewed as a "loser drug". And, take tobacco control for another example, one of the weapons used most effectively in reducing smoking rates was to denormalise that mode of behaviour. Again, none of this would be possible if these drugs existed outside of the legal framework of society.
.

If only more people learned to think of this sort of thing instead of relying on knee-jerk sentiment. My attempts to use this argument against people who opine that allowing OTC access to needles and other programs to support IV users would "encourage use" and cause more harm have not once made someone reevalute their darned ignorant position. I've never even been met with a logic based counter-argument. <sigh>

 

[pmoseman]

Sure, OK, but that only reinforces my actual argument - which you've conveniently ignored - is that the very successful tobacco control measures would be impossible to implement if tobacco weren't a legal drug. If people hid their tobacco usage in the way they do other drugs then there would be little that authorites could do to change their behaviour in this way.

I don't know what the laws are like where you live but that is most definitely NOT true of where I am from. It is illegal to smoke in a workplace, period. Workplaces didn't just suddenly decide to ban smoking out of the sheer benevolence of the business owner, if I were a business owner I would have much preferred to keep people puffing away at their desks than popping out ever hour or two for a ten minute smoke break and the loss of productivity that entails.

Yet smoking rates among adolescents has been in a long term decline for decades now. Why is that? Simple, an effective public health policy that used the markets and the fact that health authorities had some semblance of control over the market, regulation could actually be applied. If you don't regulate something, you can't control it.

Tobacco is not a legal drug, if you are under 18, or are at work. You would have to hide your use. What exactly are you saying?
I suppose it is now more regulated but the study seemed to be based in an area where smoking was allowed at other work places.
Has underage smoking been in a 10 year long steady decline? Well, if that is true, and I don't think it is, then it would be because the previous generations, which smoked, are growing up and leaving school.
You can claim that the current generation quit because of... public health policy and market control, but that is not necessarily true. Maybe it did, maybe that was ten years ago, maybe it was something else.
"If you don't regulate something, you can't control it." Well, regulate and control can mean the same thing, so it is hard to decifer your meaning. Can you regulate a rock? Obviously you can control it.

I'm pretty sure I've already offered you an argument that does NOT rely on that premise - relies the laws of supply and demand...

You mean, "Where there is demand, you will always get supply."? This is not the law of supply and demand. It is clearly not true. Just because you demand legalization does not mean it will be supplied to you.

have you used drugs before.. not judgment i just need to know if I need to answer this in a I must have chosen to use in a diffrent than you or I need to address another stereotype.

Within 3 years following their [1994] release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime. >source<

67.5% of prisoners released in 1994 were rearrested within 3 years....66.7% for drug offenders>source<

I think this line of thought is getting far outside any rational course. We need to go back to the source and point something out.
I said IF drugs are abused.
I consider arbitrarily using drugs for fun an abuse. Clearly people abuse alcohol. I have no trouble connecting with you. I am currently drinking coffee. It is for study, would using Ritalin now make me an abuser, addict, or give me a dependency?
Drugs CAN cause issues. I said IF... there are a ton of cans of worms we can open on this topic. Things I have no answer for.
My view of drugs does not stereotype the users. I see them as individuals. I know my own limits and am in my 30s now looking back with hazy recollection at my 20s.
I certainly have known differing drug users but I have no "average" user. I try to connect ideas with things I know, it is not stereotyping.
Now, I like where you are going with questioning the variables of the marijuana crime rate study. It seems obvious those researchers/that researcher chanced upon studies and evidence to support a crime/drug connection, and that is one perspective. It is apparently a debated topic with no clear answer. I honestly have very little knowledge about any of this, but I do know how to think.
That questioning line of thought is good.
Why do people pay more to smoke Cuban cigars? I am very interested to know why sexual based recidivism is at such a low rate. Notice though, in the case of drug crimes, they were not necessarily arrested for drug crimes the second go-round.

 

[neversickanymore]

It is for study, would using Ritalin now make me an abuser, addict, or give me a dependency?

Dependence is when we feal acute withdrawals if we do not take the drug we are dependent on.

Addiction is really complex but has a portion locked into the VTA or dopamine reward pathway. So a person who is addicted does not need to use the drug all the time but feel intense craving to use the drug at times. this is a really simple definition and leaves out so much, but it serves to distinguish between physical dependence and addiction.

Abuse is the improper usage.

stimulants dont really cause dependence so you would not be considered dependent.
Stimulants are highly addictive and if you fit the necessary criteria explained in here then yes you do > Addiction Guide<
If you are using to study then no matter is you are an addict or not then you are not abusing... but is you are studying to use then you are an addict.

Why do people pay more to smoke Cuban cigars?

This I think falls into the spectrum or perceived value

Definition of 'Perceived Value'

The worth that a product or service has in the mind of the consumer. The consumer's perceived value of a good or service affects the price that he or she is willing to pay for it. For the most part, consumers are unaware of the true cost of production for the products they buy. Instead, they simply have an internal feeling for how much certain products are worth to them. Thus, in order to obtain a higher price for their products, producers may pursue marketing strategies to create a higher perceived value for their products.

>source<

What has the drug war accomplished?

?

 

[coelophysis]

Dependence is when we feal acute withdrawals if we do not take the drug we are dependent on.

Addiction is really complex but has a portion locked into the VTA or dopamine reward pathway. So a person who is addicted does not need to use the drug all the time but feel intense craving to use the drug at times. this is a really simple definition and leaves out so much, but it serves to distinguish between physical dependence and addiction.

These seem the same to me.
Just my 2¢

 

[pmoseman]

.
What has the drug war accomplished?

I appreciate your respect, although I have never quite understood what that means.
.....
I am not able to answer that.

These seem the same to me.
Just my 2¢

There was a medical encyclopedia with a good explanation.They are separate concepts. It is a tough distinction. Feel free to find a real source to help you make this distinction.
http://behavenet.com/substance-dependence

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

Why do people pay more to smoke Cuban cigars?

I know you're asking that rhetorically, but I'll answer anyway. It's because Cuba's climate and soil conditions are top-tier for producing quality tobacco. A cigar with poor construction or low-quality taste will ruin your day, it's like going to the philharmonic and finding that your Beethoven has been canceled at the last minute, but you're told it's okay, they've got Justin Bieber to play for you.

 

[pmoseman]

I know you're asking that rhetorically, but I'll answer anyway. It's because Cuba's climate and soil conditions are top-tier for producing quality tobacco. A cigar with poor construction or low-quality taste will ruin your day, it's like going to the philharmonic and finding that your Beethoven has been canceled at the last minute, but you're told it's okay, they've got Justin Bieber to play for you.

It is not a rhetorical question, it was a bit of a play on the tobacco discussion, but I am impressed with the variety of solutions being offered.
Forbidden fruit?

 

[bit_pattern]

Tobacco is not a legal drug, if you are under 18, or are at work. You would have to hide your use. What exactly are you saying?

What are you saying, man? Tobacco clearly IS a legal drug. Under Australian law, it's not illegal for under-18s to smoke it's just illegal to sell them tobacco, it's not illegal for a worker to smoke, they just can't do so on work premises. I am truly struggling to even understand what you mean with this comment, it seems absurd at face value. The campaign against smoking has been immensely successful and there is soooo much data to support its efficacy that, really, it would be a pleasure to debunk if you need me to?

I suppose it is now more regulated but the study seemed to be based in an area where smoking was allowed at other work places.
Has underage smoking been in a 10 year long steady decline? Well, if that is true, and I don't think it is, then it would be because the previous generations, which smoked, are growing up and leaving school.

Well, that assumption is wrong. Hilariously wrong.

http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=daily-cigarette-use

You can claim that the current generation quit because of... public health policy and market control, but that is not necessarily true. Maybe it did, maybe that was ten years ago, maybe it was something else.

Another painfully wrong assumption - overall smoking rates in the US have been in decline since the public health campaign against tobacco began in the late 1960's. I mean, shit, if you want to try and mount an argument that smoking rates fell just because then, hell, make it - I would love nothing more than to utterly demolish such a ridiculous proposition.

http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/8/m8_2.pdf

The decline in teen smoking rates probably ARE a reflection of reduced smoking rates in the wider population but that only strengthens my argument

"If you don't regulate something, you can't control it." Well, regulate and control can mean the same thing, so it is hard to decifer your meaning. Can you regulate a rock? Obviously you can control it.

Lulwut? It's not that hard to decipher - if a market exists outside of the law then the law cannot control that market. This isn't rocket science.

You mean, "Where there is demand, you will always get supply."? This is not the law of supply and demand. It is clearly not true. Just because you demand legalization does not mean it will be supplied to you.

Sigh... You don't need legalization for drugs to be available, that's kinda the whole point, drugs are available pretty much wherever they are in high demand, just like any other commodity. Making something illegal doesn't mean people can't get it, it simply means the state has no control over who gets it.

Put it another way, before you made the fallacious comparison of legal and illegal drug use among young people. Do you really believe that if we banned liquor stores, made booze illegal to purchase, removed all of the regulation that prohibits the alcohol suppliers from selling liquor to underage people that fewer kids would be drinking alcohol? I say your nuts. If you removed regulations from currently legal drugs and left the supply of the market to organised criminals, do you think fewer kids would drink?

Of course not. It's a nonsense to suggest otherwise. If an individual is committing a crime whether they sell to an adult or a child, why wouldn't they sell to a child? Money be money and the risk is exactly the same. Currently, the risk is drastically different, the access to the legal market is way more valuable than the risk of selling to a minor, hence people comply with the law and fewer children drink than they otherwise would.

So, after all this prevarication and pointless tangents we still haven't got to the nuts and bolts of the argument - you said it ALL relies on the effects of prohibition being more deleterious than the effects of drug addiction. Well, I've falsified that assumption by providing an argument based on the rule of law and state sovereignty, none of which you have yet addressed.

E.g. you haven't even begun to address the pernicious effects illegal drug markets have outside of US borders and the way in which US demand causes civil wars and the complete collapse of the rule of law in the neighbouring countries that become drug corridors to meet US demand.

Until you deal with demand, or find some way of meeting it so that doesn't result in a multi-trillion dollar black market that undermines the very sovereignty of nation-states, you are going to have impacts that vastly outweigh the costs of drug abuse to the end user.

 

[bit_pattern]

without some kind of saving grace.

Oh. Boy. I can't wait until this gets dug a little deeper. A saving grace, you say? Please, go on...

 

[Dr_Robotnik]

If the Drug War Is Failing, Where'd All the Cocaine Go?

By Michael Zelenko

Toward the end of last year, the DEA published its 2013 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary, a 28-page report chronicling drug consumption trends across the United States...

http://www.vice.com/read/if-the-drug-war-is-failing-whered-all-the-cocaine-go

Firstly you're quoting an article from Vice as if they're known for writing completely factual informative pieces. They're not.

There is more coca plants being produced in Peru than ever before, hectare upon hectare, look it up. Cue that with the DEA (also not to be trusted for revealing credible information to the public) and FBI have been letting the Sineloa cartel import tonnes of drugs into ports in Cities like Chicago and others, supposedly for information on other cartels (money).
Sources: http://rt.com/usa/sinaloa-drug-cartel-deal-dea-551/
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/October-2013/Sinaloa-Cartel/
(there are many other articles about this.. even Zambada's court documents in another thread on here, do your own research)

So if leading figures in the DEA and FBI are giving Cartel bosses a "green light" when and where to cross the boarder, do you not think they will be making the most of the opportunity?

Those figures and %'s in Vice's article might aswell be written on a cerial box because they mean sweet Fuck all in relation to how much cocaine is actually crossing the boarder.

 

[pmoseman]

bit_pattern,
Now I don't normally like to take every little comment and break it down, but that sounds like what you want me to do.

Sigh... You don't need legalization for drugs to be available, that's kinda the whole point

Oh really, is that the point? The point of me owning a car is to get to work. That is far removed from the reality that not everyone who needs a car gets one, you gotta pay for that. Supply does not equal demand, demand/supply = price coefficient. If you want cocaine, too bad, because it is illegal all you can get is cocaine with levamisole laced in it. You want cocaine you need to pay a higher price.

drugs are available pretty much wherever they are in high demand, just like any other commodity. Making something illegal doesn't mean people can't get it, it simply means the state has no control over who gets it.

Making marijuana illegal does not make the sun stop shining. Granted. But if you live in Nazi Germany and they make being a Jew illegal, you are not going to see any Jews. Are there still Jews? Yes. 1% of what there used to be, and the rent is astronomical.
There is no natural flow to what you are saying.

fallacious comparison of legal and illegal drug use among young people.

Tobacco use among young people is not legal in the United States. You already stated that you knew that? I think you need to take more time forming these rebuttals.

Do you really believe that if we banned liquor stores, made booze illegal to purchase, removed all of the regulation that prohibits the alcohol suppliers from selling liquor to underage people that fewer kids would be drinking alcohol? I say your nuts. If you removed regulations from currently legal drugs and left the supply of the market to organised criminals, do you think fewer kids would drink?

I never said anything remotely like that. You seem to be confused about what the word regulation means. Whether they want 0% of kids using drugs or 100% of kids using drugs, having our government implies it is being regulated.
If you "left" the market to organised crime then... whatever. Again, the government does not "leave it to the criminals". They enforce their laws.

Of course not. It's a nonsense to suggest otherwise. If an individual is committing a crime whether they sell to an adult or a child, why wouldn't they sell to a child? Money be money and the risk is exactly the same.

No. The risk is not the same.

Currently, the risk is drastically different

Yes. The risk will always be different.

the access to the legal market is way more valuable than the risk of selling to a minor

The risk of selling to a minor is greater than selling to an adult. Let's not be vague about this, you are not talking about simple risk but rather criminal penalty. Selling illicit drugs to a minor carries a harsher sentencing, people do not necessarily differentiate in their mind between harsher sentences, most people do not rationalize things in that way when commiting crimes.

hence people comply with the law and fewer children drink than they otherwise would.

Yes, keeping your job selling booze at the booze store is an incentive to not commit the crime of selling to minors. So is keeping your job at Home Depot wher it is also illegal (via company policy and government regulation) to sell alcohol to anyone.
You can talk about the difference between illicit drug use in adults to youth. This ratio is lowered when drugs are made illegal, that's a bad thing, but the overall youth use is not greater, that is effected by the perceived risk. Could care fuck-all if it is "normalised". The criminals own perception of the effect of their crime is also affected this way. The true risk of selling drugs to a minor is greater than an adult, even without any criminal law in place. That information is separate from whether the drugs are legal or not.

So, after all this prevarication and pointless tangents we still haven't got to the nuts and bolts of the argument - you said it ALL relies on the effects of prohibition being more deleterious than the effects of drug addiction. Well, I've falsified that assumption by providing an argument based on the rule of law and state sovereignty, none of which you have yet addressed.

I was not talking to you or about you in that comment. I was talking about a much more prevelant argument I see on bluelight.ru and one which was going on in this thread and also in the thread you linked me to. I have absolutely no idea what makes you think you have addressed state soveriegnty. I did not read any of it.

E.g. you haven't even begun to address the pernicious effects illegal drug markets have outside of US borders and the way in which US demand causes civil wars and the complete collapse of the rule of law in the neighbouring countries that become drug corridors to meet US demand.

You threw up some name, "Tell that to Juarez". You haven't addressed the concerns of Juarez. What are you going to tell them? This guy on a message board told me I did not have any evidence and I think all your problems could be solved by making drugs legal? Let me help you supply your nation with water by increasing the demand for water because that is the law of supply and demand?

Until you deal with demand, or find some way of meeting it so that doesn't result in a multi-trillion dollar black market that undermines the very sovereignty of nation-states, you are going to have impacts that vastly outweigh the costs of drug abuse to the end user.

So screw my own country to make Juarez a happier place to live? I'll pass. Maybe Juarez doesn't have democracy. Maybe it is controlled by the US government.
If they control themselves then why don't they make it legal to export drugs? That sounds like an in-house problem.
If they don't have a democracy then drugs is not the problem we are dealing with. If you take away the drugs the US would just make them grow bananas. Democracy is one of them there "human rights". Not sure what you think since so far your argument consists of one word, Juarez, and some baseless assumptions about drug use causing fewer harm to end users than the innocents of producer nations. Which brings up drug harm, which you swore up and down was "NOT" part of your argument.

decipher

I have learned to spell decipher, thanks to you.

The decline in teen smoking rates probably ARE a reflection of reduced smoking rates in the wider population but that only strengthens my argument.

I see you have scored 5 touchdowns to my 0... in a hockey game. Translation: I have no idea what you are talking about, what "argument" you think I am aware of having with you. You aren't able to handle simple question like, what do you mean by regulation without control, that is like turning the tires without a car. You are like the Energize Bunny, and just keep going and going after I ask for one little clarification. Am I just supposed to clap and watch you go?
"Health policy" is a pretty vague position to take up. Saying "health policy" resulted in the 10 year decline is pretty fucking vague, I am sure there has been "health policy" toward cigarettes for more than 10 years. Of course, the "changes" in the health policy, but you don't say that or what any specific policy change was, you just say "health policy".
"Control over the market" is another vague position that I am not "arguing against", I am asking for clarificaiton and you are strutting around like a peacock over the idea anyone would ask what you are specifically talking about. You said, "control measures would be impossible to implement if tobacco weren't a legal drug" and "If people hid their tobacco usage in the way they do other drugs then there would be little that authorites could do to change their behaviour in this way."
That is the clearest statements you've made. Well, totally like, the "important but largely hidden problem behaviors of illegal drug use, alcohol use, tobacco use, anabolic steroid use, and psychotherapeutic drug use."Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2013). ... for forty-six classes of licit and illicit drugs kind of does say authorities can change behavior if drug use is hidden.
You should recognize the source, it's the graph about kids using drugs in school.
They also have a list of control measures, they call 'em "factors", that explain the drop in cigarette use among the under age population, ie "illicit use" or illegal use, as due to the reversal of advertising altering the perception of tobacco risk and the increased price. I am going to call those "control measures".
You can only manipulate the price so much before it is considered unattainable and gets is included on the black market. I can buy a gun legally or illegally at two different prices, or a car, or a stereo.

What are you saying, man?

Most all drugs are regulated. Tobacco is regulated. Opium is regulated. Marijuana is regulated. Aspirin is regulated. What are you talking about?

it's not illegal for a worker to smoke, they just can't do so on work premises.

That is what I said. Smoking at work, is illegal. This is not a complex concept. Smoking outside work is legal. It is regulated.

it's just illegal to sell them tobacco

I said smoking is not legal, I need to emphasize in the United States, for anyone under 18 or people at work.

Well, that assumption is wrong. Hilariously wrong.

In the United States we call that a leading question. So as hilarious as you think it is, you showed me a source that you recognize as legitimate.

Oh. Boy. I can't wait until this gets dug a little deeper. A saving grace, you say? Please, go on...

Just to keep it on the level, I changed an earlier post to a source rather than my rambling explanation. But I was saying people cannot get over drug-dependency without some "saving grace". Whatever your religious view is, what I mean is intervention. A saving grace could be your own intelligence, perseverance, or another certain someone who cares about you. If you feel compelled to find Jesus in that statement, that is up to you.

 

[coelophysis]

Damnit my bucket of popcorn is empty. Be right back. Don't stall on my behalf.

 

[neversickanymore]

Here I got some.. I got a big one as I am waiting for any sorta reason to be brought forth to justify continuing the drug war.. just make it up.. that what they have been doing for years.. something that causes fear!!

 

[bit_pattern]

bit_pattern,
Now I don't normally like to take every little comment and break it down, but that sounds like what you want me to do.

Oh really, is that the point? The point of me owning a car is to get to work. That is far removed from the reality that not everyone who needs a car gets one, you gotta pay for that. Supply does not equal demand, demand/supply = price coefficient. If you want cocaine, too bad, because it is illegal all you can get is cocaine with levamisole laced in it. You want cocaine you need to pay a higher price.

Making marijuana illegal does not make the sun stop shining. Granted. But if you live in Nazi Germany and they make being a Jew illegal, you are not going to see any Jews. Are there still Jews? Yes. 1% of what there used to be, and the rent is astronomical.
There is no natural flow to what you are saying.

And you reckon there's no natural flow to what I'M saying? Holy crap... This is going to be a looong day...

It's really not that hard to fathom. The US is like black-hole of demand. Drug laws have not reduced demand for any illegal drug. Drug laws have not reduced supply, drugs are more available than they ever have been. Supplying that demand by way of unregulated markets (an important distinction there, we'll et to that in a bit) means that the flow of those drugs is controlled by violent criminals who, because their markets aren't protected under contract law, have no recourse when things go wrong except to violence. The immense amounts of unregulated capital that is generated by those unregulated markets is the GDP of some of the source/transit countries. That amount of money in small, impoverished nations has an immense corrupting influence that DOES threaten the very sovereignty of nation-states - just look at what Escobar did in Colombia for a prime example, the whole state came perilously close to collapse. Mexico today could also easily collapse under the weight of violence and corruption that is a direct consequence of the unregulated market that feeds the insatiable demand of the US.

Tobacco use among young people is not legal in the United States. You already stated that you knew that? I think you need to take more time forming these rebuttals.

Patently false. It's illegal to sell tobacco to a minor, it is not illegal for a minor to smoke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_age

I think you need to start thinking a bit about your OWN rebuttals there, Mr. Logic.

I never said anything remotely like that. You seem to be confused about what the word regulation means. Whether they want 0% of kids using drugs or 100% of kids using drugs, having our government implies it is being regulated.
If you "left" the market to organised crime then... whatever. Again, the government does not "leave it to the criminals". They enforce their laws.

Unless the laws deal with demand then, yes, the markets still exist and they are being left to criminals because they have been abandoned by the state. Waving a legal wand and a problem and hoping it just disappears is an ongoing Sisyphean failure of epic proportions.

If they control themselves then why don't they make it legal to export drugs

Wow. Just wow. Breathtaking ignorance. The point about Juarez and the Sinaloa in general is that the Mexican government DOESN'T control it any more, it is controlled by extremely violent organised crime groups. That's the whole argument about sovereignty - which you seem to have had considerable trouble wrapping your head around - in a nutshell right there.

I see you have scored 5 touchdowns to my 0... in a hockey game. Translation: I have no idea what you are talking about, what "argument" you think I am aware of having with you. You aren't able to handle simple question like, what do you mean by regulation without control, that is like turning the tires without a car. You are like the Energize Bunny, and just keep going and going after I ask for one little clarification. Am I just supposed to clap and watch you go?
"Health policy" is a pretty vague position to take up. Saying "health policy" resulted in the 10 year decline is pretty fucking vague, I am sure there has been "health policy" toward cigarettes for more than 10 years. Of course, the "changes" in the health policy, but you don't say that or what any specific policy change was, you just say "health policy".

Sigh...

For example:

http://www.health.vic.gov.au/tobaccoreforms/new.htm#smoking

"Control over the market" is another vague position that I am not "arguing against", I am asking for clarificaiton and you are strutting around like a peacock over the idea anyone would ask what you are specifically talking about. You said, "control measures would be impossible to implement if tobacco weren't a legal drug" and "If people hid their tobacco usage in the way they do other drugs then there would be little that authorites could do to change their behaviour in this way."
That is the clearest statements you've made. Well, totally like, the "important but largely hidden problem behaviors of illegal drug use, alcohol use, tobacco use, anabolic steroid use, and psychotherapeutic drug use."Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2013). ... for forty-six classes of licit and illicit drugs kind of does say authorities can change behavior if drug use is hidden.

By control over the market I mean health authorities being able to dictate how tobacco is marketed, who it is marketed towards, the price at which it is sold, the taxes the state can collect and funnel back into public health campaigns, and even - in a world first - the packets in which tobacco companies can sell their product.

So there are a raft of measure that have been successfully implemented as part of a long-term public health strategy to redce smoking rates.

Now, if you can point to any comparable decline in the use of illegal recreational drugs as a result of prohibition then, hell, I won't just subscribe to your newsletter, I'll damned well join your club.

Most all drugs are regulated. Tobacco is regulated. Opium is regulated. Marijuana is regulated. Aspirin is regulated. What are you talking about?

Drug markets, genius.

That is what I said. Smoking at work, is illegal. This is not a complex concept. Smoking outside work is legal. It is regulated.

I said smoking is not legal, I need to emphasize in the United States, for anyone under 18 or people at work.

Again, you're just plain wrong on this point. Smoking is NOT illegal.

 

[neversickanymore]

Does the ability to sell a good at a high price make selling that good more desirable?

Does a black market unnaturally increase the price of a good?

Can you increase price without limiting supply?

Can you increase price without limiting supply or demand?

Is demand for drugs elastic?

Does the increase in price of a drug decrease or promote use?

Does increased prices for drugs decrease or increase income crime?

Does giving a convicted drug user a criminal record help or hurt society?

Does the continuation of a policy on its goals justify disregarding its results?

Do the current laws prevent a addict from becoming addicted?

Do the current laws address addiction well?

Is there anyway from preventing an addict from becoming addicted at some point?

what has the drug war accomplished that is positive?

What are its unintended negative results?

what has it done exactly?

 

[coelophysis]

Does the ability to sell a good at a high price make selling that good more desirable?

Does a black market unnaturally increase the price of a good?

Can you increase price without limiting supply?

Can you increase price without limiting supply or demand?

Is demand for drugs elastic?

Does the increase in price of a drug decrease or promote use?

Does giving a convicted drug user a criminal record help or hurt society?

Does the continuation of a policy on its goals justify disregarding its results?

Do the current laws prevent a addict from becoming addicted?

Do the current laws address addiction well?

Is there anyway from preventing an addict from becoming addicted at some point?

what has the drug war accomplished that is positive?

would you like some more butter on your popcorn?

what has it done exactly?

What are its unintended negative results?

Why yes, yes I would.

 

[pmoseman]

Patently false. It's illegal to sell tobacco to a minor, it is not illegal for a minor to smoke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_age

Possession of tobacco by a minor is totally illegal in 32 states; to a lesser degree in 5 others. The laws vary, generally it is fines and community service.
Selling to minors is illegal in 40 states.
The study your graph came from said that minors using tobacco is "illicit use" and the Wikipedia said US laws vary by state, it did not say it was legal.

Wow. Just wow. Breathtaking ignorance. The point about Juarez and the Sinaloa in general is that the Mexican government DOESN'T control it any more, it is controlled by extremely violent organised crime groups. That's the whole argument about sovereignty - which you seem to have had considerable trouble wrapping your head around - in a nutshell right there.

You keep speaking as if we are having some grand argument. I have no idea what you are talking about. You are just being incredibly vague and have not even attempted to build a foundation for anything you are saying. You have obliterated the context of my statement and have failed to answer any questions I have posed to you.
I started reading that link you sent me. The first thing I read was, "Where there is demand, you will always get supply." I did not read any more of it. That is as far as I needed to go to know it was all utterly wrong and I don't even consider anything you have to say an argument. I ask you to explain this enormous error and you keep talking about some argument which I am supposedly in and have now chosen a clubhouse for me to be in. I have not read a single argument from you. Anything resembling a statement I have clearly disproven, you could not be proven more false. You shout out the word "drug markets" as if that has some meaning. Your statements are just silly nonsense to me.

 

[bit_pattern]

Possession of tobacco by a minor is totally illegal in 32 states; to a lesser degree in 5 others. The laws vary, generally it is fines and community service.
Selling to minors is illegal in 40 states.
The study your graph came from said that minors using tobacco is "illicit use" and the Wikipedia said US laws vary by state, it did not say it was legal.

You keep speaking as if we are having some grand argument. I have no idea what you are talking about. You are just being incredibly vague and have not even attempted to build a foundation for anything you are saying. You have obliterated the context of my statement and have failed to answer any questions I have posed to you.
I started reading that link you sent me. The first thing I read was, "Where there is demand, you will always get supply." I did not read any more of it. That is as far as I needed to go to know it was all utterly wrong and I don't even consider anything you have to say an argument. I ask you to explain this enormous error and you keep talking about some argument which I am supposedly in and have now chosen a clubhouse for me to be in. I have not read a single argument from you. Anything resembling a statement I have clearly disproven, you could not be proven more false. You shout out the word "drug markets" as if that has some meaning. Your statements are just silly nonsense to me.

I'll take that as a concession