Legalising illegal drugs will decrease cost to only 33% of current cost.
Related Topics
Jasbird jasbird#deleteth...@myrealbox.com
a) Current costs of illegal drugs in USA (source NIDA) Billions ===== 1. 19.9 lost productivity of victims and incarcerated perpetrators of drug-related crime 2. 19.2 lost legitimate production due to drug-related crime careers 3. 18.0 Federal drug traffic control, property damage, and police, legal, and corrections services, etc.
4. 14.6 premature deaths 5. 14.2 lost productivity due to drug-related illness 6. 10.0 healthcare expenditures ==== 97.7 b) ***umptions i. 4 & 5 above include costs due to current illegality.
Eg. AIDS, hepatitus, estimated by me to be 75% of current costs.
ii. 6 (above) includes costs due to current illegality (50% of current costs) iii. Legalisation will increase consumption 3-fold c) Costs after Legalisation Billions ===== 1. 0 Cost eliminated 2. 0 Cost eliminated 3. 0 Cost eliminated 4. 10.9 25% decrease 5. 10.6 25% decrease 6. 14.9 50% increase ==== 36.5 d) Conclusion Legalising current illegal drugs will decrease the socio-economic costs of drugs to one third of current costs - from 97.7 billion to just 36.5 billion.
Phil Stovell p...@stovell.org.uk
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 09:40:35 -0500 in talk.politics.drugs, "Richard" The local convenience store WON'T sell to kids, as they don't for alcohol and cigarettes. The store owner would lose his license to sell. I know it's not perfect, and it does happen, but releasing the police from having to stop adult consumers would free up the manpower to enforce it properly. There's a ready-made profit in adult consumers, so why would the owner risk losing his living, and possible jail time?
Would *you* buy heroin or cocaine if legal? I certainly wouldn't - I've had to deal with a nicotine addiction recently, so no more, thanks.
Straw man fallacy.
I don't know what that is, so I can't comment.
--
Phil Stovell South Hampshire, UK
Jasbird jasbird#nosp...@myrealbox.com
No intoxicating drug sales would be allowed to kids That would be no more likely than under current circumstances as it would be an offence to drive while intoxicated.
No. I don't think that public policy should be based in TV entertainment.
Mot mot...@whim.bat
Legal drugs would likely be controlled the same way alcohol is controlled, and probably with similar pros and cons. It's not as if bags of weed would be displayed for sale in every corner gas station, available to all, as soon as it became legal. Such thinking is very shallow.
Mot mot...@whim.bat
Apparently you're ***uming that the costs of regulating drug sales would be offset by taxes. (Which is probably correct, actually.)
Jasbird jasbird#nosp...@myrealbox.com
No. I ***ume that tax revenue would be greater than costs of regulating drug sales. I just haven't factored in any 'benefits' from illegal drug use - as such benefits are ethically dubious. Apart from taxes from sales there's also income taxes from people involved in making, selling and distributing drugs and business taxes. I've discounted these as well.
The entire post was really just a troll - to see who would dispute the figures. I haven't spent enough time working out what the precise costs are and wouldn't be able to with access to the raw figures that NIDA commissioned. But I'm confident of a positive cost-benefit analysis.
Phil Stovell p...@stovell.org.uk
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:36:22 -0400 in talk.politics.drugs, Mot It should show a profit.
The UK government estimate that legalising, regulating and taxing cannabis would increase govt income by ??1.6bn ($2.6bn, ?‚¬2.3bn). That's money (well, sort of :-)) into non-cannabis users' pockets.
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-074.pdf
--
Phil Stovell South Hampshire, UK
"Steve Harris" sbhar...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com
Alcohol is available in every corner gas station in places like AZ and CA.
A better model for control of hard drugs would be to make them available to people with proof of age in dedicated state stores, much like the State Liquor Stores in Utah, but (legally) nowhere else (unlike the case with alcohol, which can still be bought at establishments with a liquor license in Utah, such as bars and restaurants).
Utah's full of Mormons who don't like the effects of alcohol on society. But they're happy to have bottled alcohol (save for 3% beer) sold exclusively by state liquor stores, which collect all the sales revenue, which sort of amounts to a tax on non-Mormons to fund Mormon projects (in this case, the revenue goes for K-12 education, and Mormons have far more kids). Both sides have struck a deal with the devil, but it works.
SBH
Phil Stovell p...@stovell.org.uk
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:47:17 +0100 in talk.politics.drugs, Jasbird Here's one: [GWPharm are producing cannabis-based medicines on behalf of the UK govt] http://www.gwpharm.com/cann_ther_brai.html [snip] "The United States Institute of Medicine (IOM) touted cannabinoids' medical potential as anti-oxidants in its 1999 report, "Marijuana and Medicine: ***essing the Science Base." Researchers determined, "[B]oth THC and CBD can be neuroprotective through their antioxidative activity; that is, they can reduce toxic forms of oxygen that are released when cells are under stress." (9) The IOM called cannabis' potential neuroprotective benefits the most "prominent" of its new medical applications. (10)" [snip] Cannabis prohibition increases brain damage.
--
Phil Stovell South Hampshire, UK
zzz z...@zzz.zzz
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 12:04:35 -0700, "Steve Harris" <sbhar...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> Why do you think state-run stores are less likely to sell to minors than private stores?
The fact is, increased enforcement since I was a minor means I get carded almost as frequently in my 30s as I did when I was buying or attempting to buy alcohol at state stores when I was 19 and 20.
BTW, I had about a 50% success rate of buying at state stores when I was underage. In some states, people are taken to jail for selling to minors.
or pornography, but don't try to tell them not to marry their 14 year old daughters.
Not if you're trying to get a buzz during an afternoon of skiing and stopping off for beers between runs. Those bastards should be required to INFORM people that they're only buying 3.2 beer.
"Steve Harris" sbhar...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com
state-run stores are less likely to sell to minors than Because when one thing is all you do, you tend to do it better. Quality control is also better if you're only having to inspect and oversee a few hundred state stores, vs.
thousands upon thousands of (sometimes transiently in business) mom and pop joints.
and 20.
It isn't just carding that's the issue. In California it's no doubt possible to shoplift small bottles of booze from supermarket liquor section shelves. You'll never get away with that in a Utah state liquor store; they're too small.
Not in Utah you didn't.
minors.
Only if they do it knowingly.
That's the "appostates" hiding out in the 4 corners area.
It's certainly not the people who run Utah.
Read the can. You shouldn't be on the slopes with a "buzz" anyway. What are you, a moron? Give my regards to Sonny Bono and Michael Kennedy when next you see them in ski-doofus Heaven.
Mot m...@lit.ot
But it's not available to all. Youngsters get carded. Hell, I'm 32 and I get carded. It's not like they will sell it to absolutely anybody who walks in and wants some.
zzz z...@zzz.zzz
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 15:27:43 -0700, "Steve Harris" <sbhar...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> Most states do just fine allowing the free market to work.
Most liquor stores I've seen keep the small bottles behind the counter.
Shoplifting is something private enterprise has a great interest in eliminating, and they're not going to let a significant portion of their inventory out the door without it being paid for.
You're right, but I didn't get carded once when I bought beer on the slopes.
I was drinking draft beer - was I supposed to read the keg?
Nothing wrong with a little buzz while skiing - you just shouldn't get flat-out drunk.
dste ...@flashmail.com (Steven Douglas)
Jasbird spells "offense" as "offence" ... keeps sounding more foreign (to the USA) all the time ... but he wants to determine USA drug policy ...
I'll bet Jasbird has never even watched the Rodney King Show. He's probably never even heard of that great TV entertainer, the one and only Rodney King ... and yet he wants to determine USA drug policy. I wonder why?
Eric Johnson er...@xs4all.nl
Propaganda alert!
The 14 year old thing is illegal and cause for excommunication from the Mormon church.
Some weirdos in Southern Utah and Northern AZ are involved, but they are
-not- lds church members.
EJ
zzz z...@zzz.zzz
Okay, but up until very recently, Utah did have a pornography czar.
I forgot you went to BYU - even if it was BYU-Hawaii (IIRC).
I think most religion's a bit twisted anyway.
meado ...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Adam Meadows)
So someone who doesn't live in the US shouldn't point out any problems we may have in the way our country is run? Interesting philosophy, but personally I prefer to welcome all good advice directed my way, independent of source origin. And consider the US's enormous sway on global policy in general and tell me that someone living in a foreign country should be disinterested in how the political winds in the US blow.
Adam
Jasbird jasbird#deleteth...@myrealbox.com
I'm perfectly willing to determine the drug policy for the rest of the world instead ... but the UN, supported by the USA, already does that.
If the USA is willing to keep it's nose out of my affairs I'll be willing to keep my nose out of yours.
Are you ready to abolish those UN treaties then?
<snip> Nope - I'd be happy if the USA (and UK) would just stop trying to determine everyone else's drug policy.
Jasbird jasbird#deleteth...@myrealbox.com
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 12:04:35 -0700, "Steve Harris" That isn't going to work. The State Liquor Stores in Utah sound like an anomaly to this British person. I think it would be easier to legalise heroin rather than set up a State Liquor Store in most other states. Isn't it a better idea to have a licensing system?
Eric Johnson er...@xs4all.nl
Yes, they have some extremists in utah.
What difference does that make? The credits are directly transferable and the diplomas are signed by the head of BYU. The Professors are also interchangeable.
EJ
Phil Stovell p...@stovell.org.uk
Could this be because the USA forcibly exports its' drug war to other countries? The USA has even threatened Canada with sanctions over plans to decriminalise cannabis.
--
Phil Stovell South Hampshire, UK
Phil Stovell p...@stovell.org.uk
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 07:15:06 GMT in talk.politics.drugs, Jasbird In my opinion Tony Blair's got his tongue so deeply up Bush's anus that he can't speak for himself.
--
Phil Stovell South Hampshire, UK
"Robert E. Lewis" rle...@brazosport.cc.tx.us
The Rodney King Show... wasn't that a spin-off of the LAPD Comedy Hour?
brian bennett shp...@mindspring.com
here: http://www.briancbennett.com/costs.htm b
--
citizen, patriot, stoner Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
visit truth: the Anti-drugwar at http://www.briancbennett.com You can learn a lot from a teacher: http://www.teachersagainstprohibition.org/ Ask these former drug warriors: http://www.leap.cc/main.htm
px ...@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel)
State liquor stores are in other states as well, but the laws aren't as strict.
In Ohio, anything with more than 20% alcohol (40 proof) must be sold in a state liquor store. This results in grocery stores selling half-strength whiskeys and spirits.
I grew up in Ohio, and was amazed that I could buy full-strength whisky in just about any corner store when I moved to California.
-Pete Zakel (p...@seeheader.nospam) Alliance: In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that they cannot separately plunder a third.
| To Top |