Would you legalise drugs?

[qwedsa]

^please point out what doesnt make sense, and why drug dealing isnt commercial exchanging of goods ("business")

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

With prescription prices through the roof, what makes you think these new drugs will be cheap? You want them safely regulated with policies, standards and practices, and skilled and quality labor. That isn't going to be anywhere near cheap. You don't employ people with HS diplomas to work in pharmaceuticals. Meanwhile people that can make them in their basement will continue to thrive.

 

[qwedsa]

^because prohibition inflates the prices by astronomical portions. all of the money going to the numerous middlemen, sneaking drugs across borders and through countries, producing in secret, drugs seized by law enforcement, etc, would no longer apply after prohibition

for a real life example, you could look at opiate prices before illegalization

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Then why aren't prescription drugs cheap?

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

With prescription prices through the roof, what makes you think these new drugs will be cheap? You want them safely regulated with policies, standards and practices, and skilled and quality labor. That isn't going to be anywhere near cheap. You don't employ people with HS diplomas to work in pharmaceuticals. Meanwhile people that can make them in their basement will continue to thrive.

This is a very valid point.

If the government were to undertake the daunting task of legalizing, regulating and producing recreational substances for the public, they would need to hire a good portion of chemists/pharmacologists which is far, far from cheap (unless I am mistaken and this isn't necessary).

Although, pharmaceuticals generally tend to be marked up well beyond 200% because the research that went into creating these substances tends to be rather expensive to say the least. This would alleviate some of the costs that go into the production of recreational substances as they would not require expensive research to develop these substances.

I am still on the fence with this issue. I think about it back and fourth but both sides tend to present strong arguments.

When in doubt, keep with the status quo. Unless I can be persuaded otherwise...

Goooo Bluelighters.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

Then why aren't prescription drugs cheap?

Research and development in the Biotech industry is expensive. They use this as a reason to mark up their drugs sometimes well beyond 3000%!

The issue tends to fall on the fact that after they have collected their costs back, either; 1) they do not decrease prices in order to record a large profit; or 2) the pharmacies that distribute these drugs mark them up so that the pharmacy can record a profit.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/generics.htm

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

The issue tends to fall on the fact that after they have collected their costs back, either; 1) they do not decrease prices in order to record a large profit; or 2) the pharmacies that distribute these drugs mark them up so that the pharmacy can record a profit.

That's exactly my point. There is going to be huge mark-ups and additional tax. You're not going to get discounted E from WalMart.

 

[kittyinthedark]

^Actually, yes you will. Look how cheap alcohol and cigarettes are compared to prescription drugs. The cheap production/overhead involved in recreational drug production combined with high, steady demand will keep prices relatively low. After the fact issues like taxes are another story altogether, but that can be addressed if/when it happens.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

That's exactly my point. There is going to be huge mark-ups and additional tax. You're not going to get discounted E from WalMart.

I don't want to buy e anywhere, lol. I just want to grow my own plants without any problems, haha.

As I said, however, unless I can be presented a solid argument that more than trumphs the anti-drug arguments, then I side with the status quo as you do.

As of now, they seem to be about equal in my eyes.

 

[Able Danger]

^because prohibition inflates the prices by astronomical portions. all of the money going to the numerous middlemen, sneaking drugs across borders and through countries, producing in secret, drugs seized by law enforcement, etc, would no longer apply after prohibition

for a real life example, you could look at opiate prices before illegalization

bingo. the more pills that are sold, the cheaper they will be. if drugs werent so heavily regulated they would be a lot cheaper. simple supply and demand.

 

[Able Danger]

"a witty phrase proves nothing"



well thought our response, you have my convinced, let's legalize drugs against the will of the majority of america. we wouldn't want to trample on your imaginary right to get high.

ya, the majority of america is also against gay rights too. only a coward looks for consensus in matters relating to freedom. i dont care if it's one person oppressing me, or one million. nobody has that right.

 

[ebola?]

>>Unless companies outsource their resources in the production of street drugs, you will see the same price crisis that faces prescription drugs today. Making drugs here in America will drive up the prices comparable to prescriptions, hence you will still see the prevalance of the drug black market. The goverment can barely regulate prescription drug prices, you think they will be more vigilante with recreational drugs? It will be worse. I've taken several sociology (macro & micro) classes, thank you.>>

Prescription drugs are as expensive as they are because of
1. The ability of drug companies to aggresively market and convince doctors to prescribe patented medicines.
2. Oligopolization of medical research and development and manufacture.

Currently prohibited recreational drugs would not be patentable in this way, and would instead be comparatively cheap (like, say, beer).

>>I've taken several sociology (macro & micro) classes, thank you.>>

What I was trying to get across was that
1. Basing a debate on credentials ("are you a sociologist?", as you asked) can be dangerous and isn't really appropriate, I think, for this sort of casual debate.
2. There is no monolithic "sociological" perspective on this issue.

>>ebola: Okay...so do you envision the overall number of recreational drug users (including alcohol users) going up or rather, for the most part, people switching from alcohol to other substances?

DJDannyUhOh: Yes. People that become addicted aren't going to switch, they will just have more to use. Introducing more readily available addictive substances into society isn't going to solve the problem.>>

Ummm...You didn't really answer the question. Do you see large numbers of current obstainers trying recreational drugs if they were to be legalized?

>>When in doubt, keep with the status quo.>>

I've found no reason to trust this maxim.

ebola

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

>>When in doubt, keep with the status quo.>>

I've found no reason to trust this maxim.

ebola

That was in regard to what I do when I am on the fence. Meaning, both sides present what I view as equal arguments.

Would you not say that's the best response when one is torn? I continue to explore thoughts and concepts but until I can reach a decision on the matter, I have no reason, currently, to rebel against the status quo.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Error on the side of caution. That's what I was told in another T&A thread.

 

[bGIveNs33]

ya, the majority of america is also against gay rights too. only a coward looks for consensus in matters relating to freedom. i dont care if it's one person oppressing me, or one million. nobody has that right.

that is a civil right... you are comparing apples to oranges.

so, let's just say for a moment, that I agree with you(try to keep this a bit more constructive). how would you set this up? would all drugs be legal? is there an age limit on them? would you vote to lower the drinking age as well? would cops be allowed to implement blood/urine tests if they thought you might be driving while intoxicated?

 

[ebola?]

>> I continue to explore thoughts and concepts but until I can reach a decision on the matter, I have no reason, currently, to rebel against the status quo.
>>

I have been at odds with the status quo consistently enough that my current null hypothesis is that it is wrong, harmful, and illegitimate.

>>Error on the side of caution. That's what I was told in another T&A thread.>>

LOL. When has it been cautious to expand the repressive aparatus of the state?

>>that is a civil right... you are comparing apples to oranges.>>

Why is cognitive freedom not a civil right?

ebola

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

LOL. When has it been cautious to expand the repressive aparatus of the state?

I'm was assuming if we need to error on the side of not knowing whether or not animals have consciousness, then we need to error on the side of illegal drugs causing more harm than good.

 

[ebola?]

Like I was trying to say, for me, the side of "caution" is denything the state the power to suppress activity wantonly. Then again, the issue of cognitive freedom and control over one's body trumps utilitarian concerns. But, I can see your argument.

ebola

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

But if what you irresponsibly do to your own body affects someone else's freedom, where do you draw the line?

 

[redeemer]

^ I don't see how negatively affecting your own health can directly affect someone else's freedom.

In the case of insurance, it's a third party that chooses to raise its prices trying to accomodate to the market. This isn't the fault of the drug user but the insurance company.