(no subject)
2/6/11 13:35![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
blorky.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSince the WoD seems to be a few Facebook "likes" away from ending (Thanks, Machine), I have some questions about how this will change things.
Unemployment - Not sure on this one. Sure, a bunch of people won't be going to jail anymore on minor drug charges, but this basically means unemployment will be going up. (Prisoner population isn't counted in unemployment stats.) Some number of people who wouldn't manage to make it to age 25 without a drug arrest on their record would have a slightly better resume, and better chances to get a job, but who's kidding whom? There aren't jobs now. Yes, I know that there is a shortage of applicants for some technical jobs, but overall, I'm struggling to believe employers are broadly unable to fill positions because of a complete refusal to hire otherwise qualified people who have arrests on their record.
I've heard the argument that legalizing drugs will lower the crime rate. I'm not sure I buy this either. If you're already mugging people for your meth or heroin money, the fact that it comes from 7-11 won't change the fact that you're broke. Again, we're back at "we need more jobs".
From a supply standpoint, I really don't believe the notion that Monsanto Franken-pot will be better or more affordable than local product. I'm guessing that Monsanto and other corporate farming conglomerates will find(purchase) enough legislators to cram through some goofy purity standards metric which precludes significant competition. Many private growers will be able to put a plant or two in their backyard for themselves and their friends without fear of an ATF surprise party, and that's cool. However, I also can't see too many communities willing to zone land for large scale heroin and meth production facilities. Also, a big boom to agri-employment causes pressure in other directions/markets. (See immigration/migrant labor concerns.)
Short version: I see the train a-comin', but I don't think there's been a lot of rigorous thinking about what it's going to look like once it gets here, and once it's passed.
[Disclosure: I'm for medicalizing most drugs, but think that a wholesale legalization of all drugs is a horrifying abdication of what government should stand for. I don't think it's relevant to the discussion, as the post presumes that the WoD and legalization is a fait accompli (That's French for "You holdin', officer?") , but I put it in here in case someone cares. I'm not interested in discussing or defending that specific point and probably won't respond to challenges to that position.]
Unemployment - Not sure on this one. Sure, a bunch of people won't be going to jail anymore on minor drug charges, but this basically means unemployment will be going up. (Prisoner population isn't counted in unemployment stats.) Some number of people who wouldn't manage to make it to age 25 without a drug arrest on their record would have a slightly better resume, and better chances to get a job, but who's kidding whom? There aren't jobs now. Yes, I know that there is a shortage of applicants for some technical jobs, but overall, I'm struggling to believe employers are broadly unable to fill positions because of a complete refusal to hire otherwise qualified people who have arrests on their record.
I've heard the argument that legalizing drugs will lower the crime rate. I'm not sure I buy this either. If you're already mugging people for your meth or heroin money, the fact that it comes from 7-11 won't change the fact that you're broke. Again, we're back at "we need more jobs".
From a supply standpoint, I really don't believe the notion that Monsanto Franken-pot will be better or more affordable than local product. I'm guessing that Monsanto and other corporate farming conglomerates will find(purchase) enough legislators to cram through some goofy purity standards metric which precludes significant competition. Many private growers will be able to put a plant or two in their backyard for themselves and their friends without fear of an ATF surprise party, and that's cool. However, I also can't see too many communities willing to zone land for large scale heroin and meth production facilities. Also, a big boom to agri-employment causes pressure in other directions/markets. (See immigration/migrant labor concerns.)
Short version: I see the train a-comin', but I don't think there's been a lot of rigorous thinking about what it's going to look like once it gets here, and once it's passed.
[Disclosure: I'm for medicalizing most drugs, but think that a wholesale legalization of all drugs is a horrifying abdication of what government should stand for. I don't think it's relevant to the discussion, as the post presumes that the WoD and legalization is a fait accompli (That's French for "You holdin', officer?") , but I put it in here in case someone cares. I'm not interested in discussing or defending that specific point and probably won't respond to challenges to that position.]
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 17:55 (UTC)I think you mean "from ending" instead of "from happening". Maybe.
Also:
I've heard the argument that legalizing drugs will lower the crime rate. I'm not sure I buy this either. If you're already mugging people for your meth or heroin money, the fact that it comes from 7-11 won't change the fact that you're broke. Again, we're back at "we need more jobs".
If fewer things are illegal, and people continue to engage in those things, then yeah, crime goes down. Prices would also likely go down due to the lowered risk and increased supply, leading to lower economic demands on users.
As for unemployment... lol. You're really worried that a statistic will go up? Isn't the statistic being artificially lowered by our current policy? I bet we could get unemployment real low if we just arrested everyone without a job!
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 18:06 (UTC)re: "If fewer things are illegal, and people continue to engage in those things, then yeah, crime goes down." Well, the crime rate for those specific things goes down. However, the claim that the legalizers seem to make is that drug use is a victimless crime and the only problem is the crimes that are requisite to support the activity. That crime (muggings to get drug money) won't go down.
re: pricing - Honestly, I really doubt this. I'm sincerely completely out of touch with how much drugs cost. (I'm not a user.) However, I just don't place my faith in corporations to supply me with quality *anything* at a cheaper rate than I can raise it artesianally.
re: unemployment - Well, I'm not worried about the actual statistic, but it does seem that a bunch of people are earning money in the drug trade. If the argument is that legalizing drugs will eliminate the illegal segment of the economy, won't those people actually not be earning money anymore. Some will transfer to the now legal drug industry, but my gut says many won't.
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 18:20 (UTC)re: "If fewer things are illegal, and people continue to engage in those things, then yeah, crime goes down." Well, the crime rate for those specific things goes down. However, the claim that the legalizers seem to make is that drug use is a victimless crime and the only problem is the crimes that are requisite to support the activity. That crime (muggings to get drug money) won't go down.
Perhaps. If it were me making the argument, I'd point out that the "victimless" crimes have real victims - the families of those put away for drug offenses, the communities, the individuals themselves who lose years of productive work and spend the rest of their lives saddled with the various difficulties that a drug conviction brings. Reducing only that crime rate will do away with many of these negative impacts, and thus it's a good thing to do, even if muggings remain flat.
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 18:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 18:46 (UTC)All excellent points. I think the issue is that if corporations don't jump in, we're still looking at the old supply chains keeping their old business practices. If the group across town is setting up a now legal pot shop on 8th avenue rather than 5th, I still predict some firebombings. (Also, some highly politized decisions about which City Council members brother-in-law gets permitting.)
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 18:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 19:05 (UTC)If, by that comment, you are referencing the northern Cali growers that voted against legalization last November (bc it was not in their best interest), I say: So what? There is a greater good to be done here. Get a job that pays taxes.
Think of the increase of the tax base, from the product, to the payroll deductions of those formerly avoiding taxes on ill gotten gains.
I would have sex with Satan if he promised not one more person went to jail for smoking cannabis hemp.
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 19:20 (UTC)re: increase in the tax base. I'd welcome that too, but I really don't think that there would be a huge increase in declared income. My gut says that there would be a lot of people growing a few plants for them and their friends, and they're not going to declare that income any more than they'd declare home grown tomatoes or wine or from home beer-making equipment.
"Get a job that pays taxes." Totally agree, but I don't think that eliminating the WoD will necessarily increase the number of available jobs.
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 21:47 (UTC)I don't see how it would increase jobs at all. What it would do is make it so those already engaged in black market drug production and distribution would now have their incomes taxed. That existing framework isn't going to going to go away once things are legalized, it's just going to come out of the shadows.
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 22:36 (UTC)I think you're right; pretty easy solution, you license growing. If you want your own plants, you go and sit the test and get the license (great educational opportunity, you could have real harm minimisation info happen here). It's just like with driving; you have to give the state some money for the privilege of being given a bit info on how to make a potentially dangerous activity less so. Growing more than the allowed plants or being busted trafficking means you get fined and lose your license. Collect taxes on those who want to distribute to the public through specified shops and license fees for those who want to go to the trouble of growing their own (something of a hassle for anyone but people who really like gardening or have a massive pot habit; I'd just go to the shop).
There is a really good model for this system already, and they have lower crime and drug use rates than nearly all of the countries with harsher laws.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 00:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 22:27 (UTC)Drug users who aren't marginalised and unable to work because of social perception of their use no longer have to rob someone to get a fix. Not to mention that junkies like that are the vast, vast, VAST minority of drug users. Most people support their drug habit with jobs already. You seem to be certain that it goes like this: Productive person -> drugs -> mugging in the street. I think you'll find it's more often: Sick Person -> Self Medicating -> mugging in the street. If you take away the legal stigma of drugs you make it much easier for people to seek treatment for their problems. The fact is that most people who abuse drugs or alcohol have deeper problems that they're using to cover up. The more secretive this using is, the less chance that person will seek help for the underlying problems. One of the big successes of heroin injecting rooms is that you have a point of contact to touch base with people who would normally be in a dark alley somewhere. A place not to arrest them, but to help them get into treatment or on programmes. Again, it's worth mentioning that a heroin user is most likely to be a middle-aged professional woman, not a guy waiting in an alley to rob you.
The danger of proclaiming solutions to things you clearly have no understanding of is that you bring all of these false biases that wind up creating ridiculous policies like mandatory detention for possession and crazy shit like that, as if it's actually going to do anything. We have a century of ignorant drug policy behind us, with nothing to show for it than ridiculous prison populations, lives destroyed by the criminalisation of smoking a joint and the demonisation of sick people as "junkies" not worth saving. It's interesting to note that if you listen to people who actually study drug policy and the impacts that political decisions around drugs have on the social sphere almost exclusive call for *less* criminalisation and more treatment, support and education. Anyone seeking anything less than full decriminalisation of possession isn't serious about drug policy, has no concern for the research and is most likely just seeking to legislate their prejudice (trafficking is different as that often goes to the heart of organised crime rings; the solution of which isn't making drugs *more* illegal).
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 22:28 (UTC)Some info
Date: 2/6/11 22:44 (UTC)Income from illegal and semi-legal activities decreased dramatically: 10% as opposed to 69% originally.
Both the number of offenders and the number of criminal offences decreased by about 60% during the first six months of treatment (according to information obtained directly from the patients' and from police records).
Court convictions also decreased significantly (according to the central criminal register).
60% drop in crime! This is not making it legal; it's just removing the need to be part of a criminal underground. The cost for the programme came out as a net saving to the community of 45fr (about $50) a day, per user.
Moar here (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/heroin/programme.htm)
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 00:26 (UTC)I'm not sure if I was someone you were specifically refeing to as "clearly have no understanding " [of issues surrounding drug addiction or the WoD], but if so please feel free to perform a violence on yourself. Note carefully that I have not posited any solutions for either the WoD or for the societal implications of our century of unscientific and uncompassionate attitudes towards drug addiction.
re: Heroin user most likely to...rob you. Any data on that? It rings true, but I'd be curious to see real stats.
"Anyone seeking anything less than full decriminalisation of possession isn't serious about drug policy," Sigh. Frankly, I agree with you on many points, but find this attitude repellent. Well intentioned, well educated people can have reasonable disagreements with you, and dismissing them as either ignorant or intellectually corrupt is, well, ignorant or intellectually corrupt. I was really enjoying your point of view and what you were bringing to the discussion up to that sentence, but at this point, your credibility has dropped to FoxNews levels. You might be right, but the amount of research I'd have to do to verify it is not worth the time. I'll do my own research.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 01:39 (UTC)cost about .75 including syringe and sterile wipe.
The question is, if it were legal, and you knew the dose was non lethal because a Rx prescribed it..
would you try it? No? Nor would I. The legality of a substance matters little to those who use or abstain. It's just a stupid law.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 02:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 03:20 (UTC)I used an example.
As a bonus, I also offered an argument to the proposition that if drugs were legal, America would become a nation of heroin addicts.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 12:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 12:57 (UTC)We have a planet to save!
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 18:59 (UTC)There are two models for the re-legalization of illegal substances.
Legal like wine
and
Legal like tomatoes.
From a supply standpoint. wine is cheaper to buy than make. Tomato growing exists quite well along side the tomato conglomerates and is easy to grow, and damn its fun too! Some people just like to garden.
There will always be markets for those who like to buy their own(space restrictions, lack of knowledge, stinky plants, etc), and those who like to grow their own.
Where there are markets, there are jobs. Fun jobs too!
Typically two things to occur when a commodity is removed from exclusive black market distribution; the price drops to a tenth of its illicit price, and the mystique ends for the youth who are denied the 'cool' factor. In Holland, high schoolers refer to cannabis as "old man's smoke." They just want to drink.
There might be a spike in use for those who were previously afraid to use (intimidated by drug tests, arrest, which leads to loss of job, etc) of an older demographic. But generally, if it is like alcohol was post prohibition, the fears of the drug warriors over this issue are, as the other fears, over exaggerated.
No one claimed all crime will cease if consumption is tolerated and markets are free of criminal elements. But what will change is people will stop being put in jail for possessing and consuming small quantities of drugs. People will stop selling at low levels, where 99% of distribution convictions occur.
The cells will free to house criminals, not users who are preyed upon in environments reserved normally for very violent people.
No one is going to embrace a heroin field, but it will allow free trade with the source countries, with tarrifs added. The cartels? Well, the just go legitimate. No one can produce and distribute these goods as cheaply and effectively as the current CIA backed cartel system.
I've been thinking about that train pullin' in for years. I'm ready to travel that line and get off this one we are all riding on.
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 19:43 (UTC)In all seriousness now, I find weed less harmful than alcohol, I cannot recall the last time I heard about someone causing multiple deaths because they were stoned. But to be fair, it probably happens.
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 22:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 20:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 20:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 20:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 01:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 20:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 22:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 01:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/6/11 22:16 (UTC)From what I can tell, pot is the same price pretty much everywhere in the world; what I've paid in India and Thailand is not much different from what I've paid in Denmark, Germany, Australia and England; all about the same price as it is in the shops in The Netherlands. The black market "tax" is about the same as government tax and overheads, without all the criminal behaviour that goes along with a black market.
I've never seen the "more jobs" argument; but less people with criminal records and less people having been made useless by prison would mean more able bodied workers. Maybe that would be more unemployment, but the quality of your employment pool would go up.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 01:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 01:22 (UTC)Color me unconvinced.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 02:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 03:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 12:36 (UTC)