I knew this was going to happen!

[Nate505]

The situation is somewhat like Prohibition, wouldn't you agree? And people are generally agreed that Prohibition *did* cut down alcohol consumption. This article from the NY Times, for example, says


https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

30-50% is pretty significant, I'd say. And then I believe it went back up by that same amount after Prohibition was repealed.

Why would marijuana be any different? I'd expect marijuana consumption to go up by about that same factor of 30-50% in states where it becomes fully legal.

Availability isn't the ONLY factor, but it absolutely will be a MAJOR factor.

Yes, I will concede the point that if you artificially reduce demand, in the case of prohibition by the way of the gun, that when that artificial restraint is lifted that usage will increase. But it has way more to do with the fact that there are no criminal sanctions on either the production or use, and the pent up demand finally has a supply to satisfy it. Availability in and of itself doesn't drive demand at all. Or at least I can't remember the time I wanted to do something or buy something just because it was there.

But the initial claim was that increased availability means increased use. I dispute that claim in general, other than the initial uptick in people who were afraid of getting arrested/fired/ostracized finally being able to do so without those consequences. There is plenty of proof of that it doesn't with another popular drug, tobacco. Buying tobacco was just as easy when I was in high school as it is now, and just as available. Yet usage keeps dropping. Part of it may be economics since tobacco costs rise with taxes and such, but I'd wager the big decrease is due to better education about the harm of smoking, and perhaps more importantly, the cultural stigma of tobacco use that has increased in the past 40 or whatever years.

But what I keep going back to is that people who make this claim will never admit that they are going to use. Which is sort of puzzling to me. If increased availability means increased use, how come it doesn't apply to you guys?

 

[Beantown]

Right, she's just lying to you.

My wife is the most innocent person you would ever meet, she would probably faint if she viewed porn. Now for Mrs. Tunafrontbum its probably and entirely different story.....

 

[TroutBum]

My wife is the most innocent person you would ever meet, she would probably faint if she viewed porn. Now for Mrs. Tunafrontbum its probably and entirely different story.....

Nikka, we don't have to watch it...


We make it.


And then watch it.





And then vow to go on diets.





Which we never do.

 

[Gameface]

Nate's post brings up an important question. Does legalization necessarily mean that companies can't drug test and screen for marijuana?

I think for most people workplace drug testing is a MUCH greater deterrent than legality.

How is this going to work in CO and WA? I imagine since it is still federally prohibited companies will continue to screen for it if they already were.

 

[Beantown]

Nate's post brings up an important question. Does legalization necessarily mean that companies can't drug test and screen for marijuana?

I think for most people workplace drug testing is a MUCH greater deterrent than legality.

How is this going to work in CO and WA? I imagine since it is still federally prohibited companies will continue to screen for it if they already were.

I doubt it. There are still many states where you can decline an employee's hire or they could be fired based on tobacco use.

I have a few smokers that work for me and its a pain in the ***.

 

[LogGrad98]

I doubt it. There are still many states where you can decline an employee's hire or they could be fired based on tobacco use.

I have a few smokers that work for me and its a pain in the ***.

Then they, and you, are doing it wrong.

 

[Beantown]

Then they, and you, are doing it wrong.

How is them smelling like **** and them being agitated all the time doing it wrong? I don't think there is anyway to fix that.


Not to mention the 20 breaks they take per day.

 

[8]

Beantown has people working for him?

*Preparing for neg*

 

[Gameface]

I doubt it. There are still many states where you can decline an employee's hire or they could be fired based on tobacco use.

I have a few smokers that work for me and its a pain in the ***.

I think that's a better way to handle it then prohibition.

 

[Harambe]

But the point is they are both extremely addictive.....

Do you have a learning disability or something?

The point I'm making, is on one hand you're fighting your mind. On the other hand, you're fighting chemicals your body thinks it needs. There's a big difference there. One you can trick yourself out of. The other causes you physical pain until your body gets it out of its system.

But since it's not conducive to your argument, you don't bother looking at it any differently.

The only problem with porn is its abuse. The same can be said of tobacco, weed, fast food, sugar, soda, cheese and religion. Should we ban these things as well?

 

[Bronco70]

Using prohibition as an argument to keep marijuana illegal... was that just an academic exercise, Colton? I hope so, because that's a horrible argument.

Organized crime is more tolerable than adults having the freedom to choose.

Uh.....


Sent from the JazzFanz app

 

[GVC]

Without enacting other policies to deter use, legalization/decriminalization of drugs should lead to an increase in use, at least in the short-run (all else equal). How this increase occurs is of some interest, perhaps. With legalization, changes in potential consequences (arrest, incarceration) and social norms should increase use at the extensive margin (new users). Legalization should also lead to some decrease in price (depending on the regulatory regime, and how resources are used to combat black market production and sales), which should increase use among current consumers (that is, at the intensive margin).

So what? Is use what we're most concerned about? What about problematic use/abuse (addicts) and youth consumption? Is the criminal law the best way to reduce the negative consequences of drug abuse (in either social or financial cost)?

This is what is most often missed in this discussion. Prohibition costs money...lots of ****ing money. Roughly half of all arrests in America are for marijuana-related offenses; ~90% of those arrests are for simple possession. Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, estimates that the legalization of drugs would save state and federal governments $41.3 billion in enforcement, and potentially yield tax revenues of $46.7 billion. That ~$90 billion can be used to combat drug abuse, and the negative consequences of said abuse, in other ways. It can also be used to focus efforts on actually eliminating the black market, making the use of drugs safer, and more effectively keeping drugs out of the hands of minors.

While I'm not a fan of Glenn Greenwald's CATO Institute report on the effects of decriminalization in Portugal, there are a few key outcomes worth considering. While drug use has gone up (albeit at similar rates as in neighboring countries), use among youth and problematic users (addicts) has declined. Further, the prevalence of HIV, other diseases associated with injection, and drug-related deaths have declined. The policies/programs that led to these positive outcomes were/are not nearly as expensive as prohibition.

If the War on Drugs isn't working, shouldn't we try something else? Are issues of public health best dealt with using the criminal law?