Will: How about legalizing hard drugs to put the cartels out of business?

posted at 12:11 pm on April 12, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The argument that full drug legalization would destroy the cartels’ economic foundation isn’t new or really news; libertarians have made this case for many years.  The fact that conservative columnist George Will has begun to argue it might be.  In yesterday’s column, Will reviews a new study on the subject, and concludes that legalization is probably inevitable anyway — and the damage to the cartels might be worth it:

Dealers, a.k.a. “pushers,” have almost nothing to do with initiating drug use by future addicts; almost every user starts when given drugs by a friend, sibling or acquaintance. There is a staggering disparity between the trivial sums earned by dealers who connect the cartels to the cartels’ customers and the huge sums trying to slow the flow of drugs to those street-level dealers. Kleiman, Caulkins and Hawken say that, in developed nations, cocaine sells for about $3,000 per ounce — almost twice the price of gold. And the supply of cocaine, unlike that of gold, can be cheaply and quickly expanded. But in the countries where cocaine and heroin are produced, they sell for about 1 percent of their retail price in the United States. If cocaine were legalized, a $2,000 kilogram could be FedExed from Colombia for less than $50 and sold profitably here for a small markup from its price in Colombia, and a $5 rock of crack might cost 25 cents. Criminalization drives the cost of the smuggled kilogram in the United States up to $20,000. But then it retails for more than $100,000.

People used to believe enforcement could raise prices but doubted that higher prices would decrease consumption. Now they know consumption declines as prices rise but wonder whether enforcement can substantially affect prices.

Kleiman, Caulkins and Hawken urge rethinking the drug-control triad of enforcement, prevention and treatment because we have been much too optimistic about all three.

And cartels have oceans of money for corrupting enforcement because drugs are so cheap to produce and easy to renew. So it is not unreasonable to consider modifying a policy that gives hundreds of billions of dollars a year to violent organized crime.

Will notes that the intermediate position of legalizing only marijuana would only cut a quarter of cartel revenue, and would be insufficient to bring down the drug rings that deliver harder drugs to the US.  That’s certainly true, but it’s a lot easier to legalize marijuana, for a few reasons.  One, it’s more socially acceptable and is likely to face much less opposition.  It’s also less toxic than other intoxicants — in fact, it’s less toxic than alcohol.  It’s nearly impossible to overdose while smoking marijuana, even the stronger varieties, while alcohol poisoning directly results in a number of deaths each year (not indirectly, as in traffic deaths, but in actual cases of poisoning). More to the point, though, legalizing marijuana would allow it to be cultivated within the US, where enough could be grown that would more or less eliminate the need to import it.  That would reduce or eliminate the issues of border security and import taxes, at least to the extent that either apply to marijuana.

These conditions don’t apply to other drugs.  Even methamphetamine, which could be easily manufactured in the US, is very toxic and dangerous to produce.  Cocaine and heroin would almost certainly have to be imported, and while the cartels might be able to convert to legitimate businesses, importation of these drugs would necessarily involve heavy government regulation and taxation.  That would make them more costly to produce and sell.  Even in legalized forms of recreational “drug” use, such as cigarettes and alcohol, taxes create an underground economy in both that routinely runs into the billions, and is a chronic problem for law enforcement.  That’s also organized crime, and it can become violent at times as well.  We might find that legalization provides two economies, and the law-enforcement costs might not drop all that dramatically when it comes to cocaine and heroin even when we allow the trade.

Curiously, Will only nibbles at the core of the libertarian argument for legalization, which is that (a) adults should be allowed to choose for themselves whether to imbibe in intoxicants, and (b) the costs of legalization are far outweighed by the benefits of rolling back decades of encroachment on civil liberties in the name of fighting the “war on drugs.”  Those are both compelling arguments, even if one disagrees about the cost-benefit analysis, and not just for libertarians.  I’m skeptical about the idea of legalizing cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine, but I’m equally skeptical about government enforcement that requires me to provide photo ID to buy Sudafed while no one bothers to check my ID when I identify myself at the voting booths.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

As a free market system, medical marajuana works pretty darn well.

The federal government doesn’t distort the market with taxation and regulation. Quality is excellent and prices are reasonable. You get the product in a prescription bottle at the clinic, rather than in a plastic bag from some shady character in the local park.

MichaelGabriel on April 12, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Definitely cutting down the crime. There are dozens of instances of marijuana clinic robberies in the last two years. Preusmably more if one looks further back.

J.E. Dyer on April 12, 2012 at 3:47 PM

If we’re going to legalize drugs, then we must also end free health-care. The tax payer should not be forced to subsidize the irresponsibility of drug addicts.
We should also allow hospitals to pursue those who receive services, and don’t pay. Its one thing to say Hospitals cannot refuse service, its another to say they have to eat the cost of that service or foist it off on the rest of us.
If we’re going to legalize drugs (and I think we probably should legalize the less potent drugs) then we should also demand a responsibility society. One in where people are held to account for their actions. One of my concerns about legalization has always been the intoxicated driver/pilot/operator issue. Perhaps we should amend the DUI laws so that if someone who is impaired causes an accident, his insurance will not be obligated to pay for it and he will be on the hook for the costs (leins, payment plans, whatever).

Iblis on April 12, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Well, somebody always get stuck with paying for cleaning up all the druggies messes. And what with crackheads not usually known for their wealth & sense of responsibility guess who’s tagged “it” when it comes time to pay the bills.
whatcat on April 12, 2012 at 3:19 PM

That’s a helluva pricey way to clean up the mess that occurs even when you make drugs as illegal as you can in this country.
JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Even if you get the normalization of crack-addiction as a “right” the messes will still be there in equal, if not massively huger, numbers. And they will still need to be cleaned up. If you want to sign on to at least 50% of your income as a specific set-aside to pay for it, be my guest. I’m not paying the piper whom I did not invite or hire.

whatcat on April 12, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Definitely cutting down the crime. There are dozens of instances of marijuana clinic robberies in the last two years. Preusmably more if one looks further back.

J.E. Dyer on April 12, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Banks get robbed every day. Ban money.

Liquor stores get robbed every day. Ban alcohol.

MichaelGabriel on April 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM

The error in your logic is, we’re well aware of that, and we don’t want to pay more.

If you want to pay less, then regulate and tax and stop wasting tens of billions on interdiction, prosecution, and incarceration. Even if treatment costs tripled, you would still come out way ahead.

TallDave on April 12, 2012 at 4:43 PM

How do I nominate this story for Most Confused Post of 2012?

EddieC on April 12, 2012 at 4:45 PM

There are dozens of instances of marijuana clinic robberies in the last two years.

Are you including the ones by the gov’t?

TallDave on April 12, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Even if you get the normalization of crack-addiction as a “right” the messes will still be there in equal, if not massively huger, numbers.

Actually, about 90% of the mess is caused by the illegality itself. It’s actually considerably harder to ruin your life with cheap legal drugs than with expensive illegal drugs. And people who are going to ruin their lives will generally find a way to do it regardless.

How much worse did alcoholism get after Prohibition ended?

TallDave on April 12, 2012 at 4:48 PM

There is no such thing as regular, recreational, consequence-free use of hard drugs.

J.E. Dyer on April 12, 2012 at 3:38 PM

The surprising truth about heroin and addiction

sobincorporated on April 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM

show some supporting evidence for that claim.

chasdal on April 12, 2012 at 1:01 PM

I have seen that figure mentioned but cannot find it.

How about this for a start:
Wrong Door

… Criminologist Peter Kraska estimates that the number of SWAT team “call-outs” soared past 40,000 in 2001 (the latest year for which figures are available) from about 3,000 in 1981. The vast majority are employed for routine police work — such as serving drug warrants — not the types of situations for which SWAT teams were originally established. And because drug policing often involves tips from confidential informants — many of whom are drug dealers themselves, or convicts looking for leniency — it’s rife with bad information. As a result, hundreds of innocent families and civilians have been wrongly subjected to violent, forced-entry raids

… Home invasions can also provoke deadly violence because forced-entry raids offer very little margin for error. Since SWAT teams began proliferating in the late 1980s, at least 40 innocent people have been killed in botched raids. There are dozens more cases where low-level, nonviolent offenders and police officers themselves have been killed…

… New York City provides perhaps the most egregious example of public officials’ reluctance to rein in the excessive use of paramilitary tactics. Throughout the 1990s, the city’s newspapers reported a troubling, continuing pattern of “wrong door” drug raids. In many cases, tactical teams raided homes based solely on uncorroborated tips from unproven informants.

Members of the city’s Civilian Complaint Review Board cautioned that they were seeing increasing complaints of botched raids, but limited jurisdiction and bureaucratic turf wars prevented them from doing anything about it. The principal result of the CCRB’s warnings was the creation of a special police unit for the sole purpose of fixing locks, doors and windows in cases where forced-entry searches were performed on the wrong premises. Civil rights attorneys warned that without more substantial changes, it was only a matter of time before an innocent person would be killed in a botched drug raid.

They were right. In 2003, acting on a bad tip from an informant, police mistakenly raided the Harlem home of Alberta Spruill, a 57-year-old city worker. The violence of the incursion literally scared Spruill to death; she died of a heart attack at the scene. The raid spurred public outrage, calls for reform, and promises from the city to change its ways. The NYPD published new guidelines calling for more reliability when taking tips from informants. The city also promised greater vigilance in conducting surveillance and double-checking addresses before a SWAT team was sent in…

But I am sure that if it happened to you… a chainsaw bursting thru your door as happened to a single mother, a flash-bang grenade tossed thru your window which caused the dead of the NYC worker, your dogs shot as happened to a Maryland mayor, a foot on your neck with an assault weapon in your ear as is the typical way SWAT restrains suspects… you would react philosophically about it.

Do a search on Reason Magazine and see how many individual tragedies are the result of our war on drugs and militarized police forces.

Laurence on April 12, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Even if treatment costs tripled, you would still come out way ahead.

TallDave on April 12, 2012 at 4:43 PM

How about ending the welfare state, so that I and the rest of the taxpayers don’t have to pay anything for degenerate junkies?

That’s the real libertarian solution.

Funny how the so-called “libertarians” on his board are all about “rights”, but are completely lacking in the “responsibility” department.

Those people are actually called – liberals.

Rebar on April 12, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Legalization, even with new taxes, wouldn’t bring the price of drugs up… it would bring them down. It would bring them down because the overwhelming share of the price of black market drugs in this country goes to pay what is known as a “risk premium”; that is, someone engaged in drug dealing, particularly at the higher levels, face enormous risk of going to jail or being killed by competitors, and thus want to be compensated for both that risk, and the costs of offsetting that risk (lawyers on retainer, security, police payoffs, etc). Get rid of the risk premium, and whatever taxes a legislature puts on drugs will be puny compared to the corresponding price cut.

Unless, of course, legislatures put grossly excessive taxes on the drugs in question. In which case, you will see black markets pop up, to take advantage of tax differentials between jurisdictions, like you see with the NC/NY tobacco markets. But even there, the vast majority of people buy their tobacco (or drugs) from the legitimate market, and simply pay the tax as the cost of having the benefit of dealing with normal businessmen, as opposed to criminals.

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Still others sue said producers of legal tobacco products and win multi-billion dollar settlements. So to your economics lecture, there will be a risk premium paid regardless of legality. If legalized, that penalty will be paid by the legitimate pharmaceutical companies for damages done to the user of their products AND to those who are harmed by users of their product, as well as to politicians to keep government off their backs. How do you produce something that is designed to alter the mind and not be responsible for unintended consequences?

Only pharmaceutical companies set up to test product according to FDA standards, who will be licensed to sell and develop drugs, and who can grease the halls of Congress to keep Uncle Sam off their back will be selling these drugs. Everyone else will be crowded out, starting with the regulatory capture of the market by Big Pharma. So even if legalized you will not get the deal you hope for, as the producer will have regulatory and legal costs to cover, as well as will be operating in a rather tight un-free market. And of course, there will be fees and taxes in the cost of every drug as well. Government at all levels will see that there is enough regulation in place to insure they get their revenue.

Now, what happens when only pharmaceutical companies can make and market a recreational drug, in order that government gets its cut, but due to the high costs of litigation surrounding the product the production is discontinued due to lack of profitability? Surely, there’s no obligation to produce something that, no matter how many people want it, is a money looser? What will happen is that legal drugs will be consumed by Americans who import them from places that do make them, bypassing both those who hold the patents and distribution rights here and the tax man, which will be illegal. And when you screw big pharma and Uncle Sam out of money, be prepared to be placed beneath the jail when caught.

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Funny how the so-called “libertarians” on his board are all about “rights”, but are completely lacking in the “responsibility” department.

Those people are actually called – liberals.

What’s the difference between a libertarian and a liberal?

A libertarian has a budget.

psrch on April 12, 2012 at 4:53 PM

But I am sure that if it happened to you… a chainsaw bursting thru your door as happened to a single mother, a flash-bang grenade tossed thru your window which caused the dead of the NYC worker, your dogs shot as happened to a Maryland mayor, a foot on your neck with an assault weapon in your ear as is the typical way SWAT restrains suspects… you would react philosophically about it.

Laurence on April 12, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Maybe the problem is with law enforcement proceedure, not the law itself?

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Do it.
It’s time to legalize them. All of them except things like Meth.

I’ve posted it before but it’s worth repeating now. You can find the info. in Wiki. Two of the activist who were behind the beginnings of the FDA were a socialist and a communist.

Somehow we rose as a nation with a lot of these drugs legal. Just because they are legal, doesn’t mean we have to have government subsidies and programs to dispense needles and free drugs. Treat it the same as alcohol. Exactly the same.

But the real issue for me is that, on the one side you have these powerful cartels committing horrible atrocities, crime, corruption lawlessness.. and on the other side you have our government stripping America of so many of our freedoms all in the name of fighting this losing war on drugs. We have sacrificed so much in the name of this phony war. Our police have become militarized in America all for this war on drugs. And in the middle is all the rest of us keeping our heads down.

If people want to ruin their lives on drugs let them. Let it be the responsibility of the churches and other good meaning people with good programs to do the interventions in people’s lives and keep the government out of it.

I seriously have come to the conclusion that the left wants this war to continue. It is the excuse to attack our liberty.

JellyToast on April 12, 2012 at 5:03 PM

It’s actually considerably harder to ruin your life with cheap legal drugs than with expensive illegal drugs. And people who are going to ruin their lives will generally find a way to do it regardless.
TallDave on April 12, 2012 at 4:48 PM

If you’re up for selling the farm to pick up the tab, go ahead. Just don’t expect working people to pay for meeting the demands of the costly unbridled hedonism of the entrenched irresponsible class. e.g. put your money where your mouth is – start a super-fund to pay for cleaning up the massive accompanying drug-anarchy mess. Good luck finding anyone who’s enthused about that.

whatcat on April 12, 2012 at 5:07 PM

If people want to ruin their lives on drugs let them. Let it be the responsibility of the churches and other good meaning people with good programs to do the interventions in people’s lives and keep the government out of it.
JellyToast on April 12, 2012 at 5:03 PM

You’re the one demanding crack cocaine “rights” be made the law of the land – you pay for it. Stop expecting hard working people to pick up the tab for your schemes.

whatcat on April 12, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Or said in another way, legalization of drugs will be like nuclear energy. In theory, nuclear means cheap and abundant energy. In practice, liability and over-regulation make it virtually unprofitable. And abundant energy is something we all want, unlike having a drug addict next door enjoying his 427 weeks of unemployment checks.

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 5:13 PM

And abundant energy is something we all want, unlike having a drug addict next door enjoying his 427 weeks of unemployment checks.
shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Aw, com’n, they’d have to have worked instead of getting high all day to get UB. But since “substance addiction” is a disability, they’ll manage to get by on the misc Federal & local doles.

whatcat on April 12, 2012 at 5:18 PM

There are dozens of instances of marijuana clinic robberies in the last two years. Preusmably more if one looks further back.

J.E. Dyer on April 12, 2012 at 3:47 PM

As opposed to liquor store or pharmacy robberies?

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Stop expecting hard working people to pick up the tab for your schemes.

whatcat on April 12, 2012 at 5:11 PM

What “scheme”? The “scheme” to make the reach of government smaller by dialing back their responsibilities?

Your conservative movement, ladies and gentlemen…

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Do a search on Reason Magazine and see how many individual tragedies are the result of our war on drugs and militarized police forces.

Laurence on April 12, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Since we’re all about taking the profit out of drugs in order to reduce the associated violence, then maybe the emphasis by law-enforcement on the dealers and traffickers is misplaced, since economics dictates they are all replaceable, and they are the ones in the equasion who are well armed. Maybe Jerry-Got-Yer-Crack don’t give a sh!t about going to prison or even dying.

So as someone said earlier, maybe we should change the war on drugs. Maybe it should target – yes – the user! Maybe the smug, smart-ass user who doesn’t care about the people dying in his town or in some foreign land to get him his hit should do hard time. Let the pusher go. The guy who needs his job to keep his house, the student who will be kicked out of school, the kid who never thought he’d see the inside of a jail because he’s not “one of them” – these are the people most fearful of incarceration, NOT Mr. Jerry-Got-Yer-Crack.

In my town they took a big bite out of prostitution by going after the JOHNS – arresting and putting their photographs everywhere. Nobody wanted that hassle so they quit or moved elsewhere. NO war on prostitution. NO militarization of police.

Go after the pimply student pothead and you need not have a militarized police force – send the meter maid. Now that’s a war on drugs we can live with.

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 5:30 PM

The error in Will’s logic is that by legalizing hard drugs, the cartels will lose their source of income and thus just go away. More likely, they will switch their attention to other areas of crime or even to new and potentially more dangerous drugs.

The ability to get rich quickly and the power that comes from that wealth is too intoxicating for them to give up. They will adjust.

In other words, after we legalize hard drugs, I’m not sure we’ll be any better off. We’ll have more drugs and the impact they have on our people–but they’ll be legal–and we’ll still have to spend money chasing bad guys. They will just be selling different fantasies.

STL_Vet on April 12, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Still others sue said producers of legal tobacco products and win multi-billion dollar settlements. So to your economics lecture, there will be a risk premium paid regardless of legality.

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Once again, the dearth of understanding of basic economics amongst conservatives depresses me.

The only multi-billion settlement that I know Big Tobacco has paid out on is the one to the states to cover Medicare expenses. And that was reflected in a fairly steep increase in the price of a pack of cigarettes… around 25%.

Now, compare that with the price increases Mr. Will discusses of thousands of percent, due to the risk premium associated with the black market. Are you going to tey to sit there with a straight face and compare the two. Because by doing so, you are proving yourself to be an economic illiterate of such magnitude as to meet the requirements for being a liberal.

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 5:34 PM

The error in Will’s logic is that by legalizing hard drugs, the cartels will lose their source of income and thus just go away. More likely, they will switch their attention to other areas of crime or even to new and potentially more dangerous drugs.

STL_Vet on April 12, 2012 at 5:30 PM

If those new drugs are also legal, how are they going to be able to compete with legal producers? Hmmm?

As to other areas of crime, some of them will in fact, turn to other areas of crime. Most, however, will not, as the return on investment (including the risk premium) on any other form of crime is miniscule compared to black market drugs.

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Stoner Flash Mob!

Meh. Maybe later.

; )

MichaelGabriel on April 12, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Stop expecting hard working people to pick up the tab for your schemes.
whatcat on April 12, 2012 at 5:11 PM

What “scheme”?
JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Scroll up, that was a response to someone who demanded others take the responsibility to clean up the mess. If you make a demand for X, you are responsible for cleaning up all the inevitable messes it creates.

whatcat on April 12, 2012 at 5:51 PM

If those new drugs are also legal, how are they going to be able to compete with legal producers? Hmmm?

As to other areas of crime, some of them will in fact, turn to other areas of crime. Most, however, will not, as the return on investment (including the risk premium) on any other form of crime is miniscule compared to black market drugs.

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Just suggesting these guys won’t role over and die. Too much money at stake. Further, will there be no limits on anything? Can I now buy morphine over the counter, Oxy? In almost any scenario, there is room for new drugs that can pop up before the government can regulate them. Or, in this case, will the government not regulate these legal drugs in any way? Our government?

STL_Vet on April 12, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Further, will there be no limits on anything? Can I now buy morphine over the counter, Oxy? In almost any scenario, there is room for new drugs that can pop up before the government can regulate them. Or, in this case, will the government not regulate these legal drugs in any way? Our government?

STL_Vet on April 12, 2012 at 5:52 PM

I would argue that day to day regulation of these drugs and their suppliers be left to the individual states. Isn’t that why we have a Tenth Amendment?

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Scroll up, that was a response to someone who demanded others take the responsibility to clean up the mess. If you make a demand for X, you are responsible for cleaning up all the inevitable messes it creates.

whatcat on April 12, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Really?? So, all those PTSD cases coming back from Iraq? Are those of us who argued against the Iraq War now exempt from our share of cleaning up that mess?

How about those of us who argue against the Drug War? Are we exempt from paying for the prisons, the militarization of the cops, the DEA? That would be a unique way of looking at government, to be sure.

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Now, compare that with the price increases Mr. Will discusses of thousands of percent, due to the risk premium associated with the black market. Are you going to tey to sit there with a straight face and compare the two. Because by doing so, you are proving yourself to be an economic illiterate of such magnitude as to meet the requirements for being a liberal.

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 5:34 PM

First, given you comments on this subject I don’t give a damn what you think of me.

Second, you just blew by all my other points. If legalized, do you think just anyone will be able to grow pot and sell it? Of course not, because government wants the tax money. You can’t even sell unpasturized milk off your own farm, right? In time, big pharma will engineer and patent a genetically-engineered marijuana and get all others banned by promoting certain “benefits” to government. And whomever is producing recreational drugs, which have no other use except to alter mood and mind, will be bombarded by lawsuit after lawsuit by users who claim harm, victims of users, family members of users, and even states who can show a cost to them from the use of a specific product. So all that liability cost gets priced in.

Further, how much does a 12oz can of Coke cost to make versus what it retails for? It costs 6 cents. The package costs more then 5 cents, so the actual drink costs less than a penny. But folks pay from 50 cents at the supermarket to a buck from a machine to two bucks at a restaurant.

You and George completely leave out the perception of value in your arguments. If people (generally better off) pay $3000 for cocaine per oz today, why would they not be happy with paying $2000 when legalized? Do the rich go around bragging about how little they pay for stuff? No, they do not.

So if I can produce cocaine for ten bucks an ounce and get $2000, who’s going to stop me? Who will force me to sell a recreational drug at just above its production and distribution cost in order to deter a black market? Goverment will try, of course, as it tightens regulation. But it will not require me to lower my retail price, and thus reduce my profits, if the result is that tax revenue from my business is made trivial.

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I would argue that day to day regulation of these drugs and their suppliers be left to the individual states. Isn’t that why we have a Tenth Amendment?

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Yes, you may be right. But I was more focused on the fact that the criminal organizations that are willing to construct tunnels under the MX border and build submarines to move cocaine will go to great lengths to ensure they find ways to ensnare people in some criminal enterprise, be it drugs or something else.

STL_Vet on April 12, 2012 at 6:04 PM

The only multi-billion settlement that I know Big Tobacco has paid out on is the one to the states to cover Medicare expenses. And that was reflected in a fairly steep increase in the price of a pack of cigarettes… around 25%.

That’s on top of already outrageous taxes on the product. A pack costs over $10 in NYC, against what is likely only pennies worth of actual tobacco content. Figure out how much the actual tobacco in a cigarette pack costs to produce and then compare that to the out-the-door cost to the consumer – then you will begin to see that the out-the-door cost on legalized drugs will have little bearing on the actual cost of the raw product.

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 6:07 PM

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM

If legalized, do you think just anyone will be able to grow pot and sell it?

I suppose that wold depend on the individual state. In both Colorado and California, the limits placed on people growing their own cannabis are minimal. The limits placed on selling it are more stringent. But it’s not like there is a shortage of competition.

let us examine your rather asinine claims with regard to the alcohol industry. There are barriers to entry into the market, to be sure. But they are nowhere near draconian enough to prevent literally hundreds of brewers from entering the market to compete with Miller and Anheuser Busch. So, it would appear that your assertion has no basis in reality.

Big surprise, there.

In time, big pharma will engineer and patent a genetically-engineered marijuana and get all others banned by promoting certain “benefits” to government.

You mean like Anheuser Busch has done with beer?

And the dumbassery continues.

And whomever is producing recreational drugs, which have no other use except to alter mood and mind, will be bombarded by lawsuit after lawsuit by users who claim harm, victims of users, family members of users, and even states who can show a cost to them from the use of a specific product. So all that liability cost gets priced in.

Just like it has with alcohol and tobacco. And yet, I don’t see you screeching about how making them illegal would solve the non-existent problem of Anheuser Busch manipulating th market.

More dumbassery.

Further, how much does a 12oz can of Coke cost to make versus what it retails for? It costs 6 cents. The package costs more then 5 cents, so the actual drink costs less than a penny. But folks pay from 50 cents at the supermarket to a buck from a machine to two bucks at a restaurant.

And yet, no black markets surrounding Coca Cola. And nobody getting killed in robberies to satisfy a soda junky’s habit. Imagine that.

Does the dumbassery never cease?

If people (generally better off) pay $3000 for cocaine per oz today, why would they not be happy with paying $2000 when legalized? Do the rich go around bragging about how little they pay for stuff? No, they do not.

Do you think the rich got that way by seeking out the most expensive products?

New heights of dumbassery.

So if I can produce cocaine for ten bucks an ounce and get $2000, who’s going to stop me?

The guy who is willing to make it for ten bucks an ounce, and sell it for $1000. And he is going to be stopped by the guy willing to make it for ten bucks and sell it for $100.

Once again, economic illiteracy worthy only of the Left. “Dumbass” just doesnt do it justice.

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 6:11 PM

That’s on top of already outrageous taxes on the product. A pack costs over $10 in NYC, against what is likely only pennies worth of actual tobacco content. Figure out how much the actual tobacco in a cigarette pack costs to produce and then compare that to the out-the-door cost to the consumer – then you will begin to see that the out-the-door cost on legalized drugs will have little bearing on the actual cost of the raw product.

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 6:07 PM

And yet, nobody (nobody serious, anyways) is talking about prohibiting tobacco. Because we all know what egregious damage would be done to society if we tried it.

And to say that input costs have no bearing on the price of finished product is economic and business illiteracy on an astounding level. You should probably stop, before embarrassing yourself any further.

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM

You don’t have to legalize it; for the cost of interdiction and law enforcement you could buy and destroy it and have money left over. Of course, you’d have an unemployment problem so……I guess crime does pay after all.

LizardLips on April 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Maybe the problem is with law enforcement proceedure, not the law itself?

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 4:54 PM

In my original quote, I did not address the law but how the war on drugs as practiced is inconsistent with the 4th Amendment. I believe in the rule of law and the Constitution as amended trumps all other laws, no matter how well intentions. Reread that amendment and ask yourself how 40,000 SWAT raids a year, most of them for non-violent offenses, can be consistent with it.

Laurence on April 12, 2012 at 6:18 PM

The guy who is willing to make it for ten bucks an ounce, and sell it for $1000. And he is going to be stopped by the guy willing to make it for ten bucks and sell it for $100.

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 6:11 PM

No, the guy who can make it for $100 will be stopped by legislation written by the guy who sells it for $1000. The corruption we seek to end in governments south of the border will walk right into our halls of power, where a fresh cigar and martini will await them. This is a push for more revenue, pure and simple.

You really like conflating alcoholic beverages with illicit drugs, don’t you? Without that delusion, you have no argument.

You fail to see that once your favorite drugs are legalized they will be regulated by the FDA, severely limiting who can produce them, likely only large pharma companies. That in turn limits how low the price can go, as pharmaceutical companies try not to be competitive but rather to control a market for as long as possible. Medicine is far, far from a free market. And government is complicit in that near monopoly. It will allow companies to engineer and patent their own stuff and ban everything that can be grown or produced by a regular Joe for the sake of taxation.

Beer is not regulated by the FDA other than for truth in labeling, because it is not sold by Anheuser Busch with claims it can cure anything other than a dry throat. No comparison.

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 6:32 PM

You don’t have to legalize it; for the cost of interdiction and law enforcement you could buy and destroy it and have money left over. Of course, you’d have an unemployment problem so……I guess crime does pay after all.

LizardLips on April 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I am reminded of a story within Catch-22

You see, Major Major Major’s father was a farmer, who owned some land suitable for growing sorghum. And the government paid him very generously to not grow sorghum upon his land. So generously, in fact, that his father took the proceeds from not growing sorghum, and used them to buy himself more land, upon which to not grow more sorghum. Which proceeded to make him very rich. And when his neighbors would come around seeking advice on how to be so prosperous, Major Major Major’s father would tell the “As you sow, so shall you reap”.

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Reread that amendment and ask yourself how 40,000 SWAT raids a year, most of them for non-violent offenses, can be consistent with it.

Laurence on April 12, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Non-violent offenses… denial…Egypt… etc.

I’m unaware of all the paint-ball turf wars going on in the drug-dealing community. I thought they used real guns, but maybe I’m just a victim of the MSM yet again.

You buy illicit drugs, you purchase bullets for the gangster’s and the cartel’s guns. Addicts lie to themselves and say no, not I. But yes – YOU. You can blame SWATT all you want for kicking in the wrong door, but the bullets being shot at them are bought and paid for by common criminals, AKA potheads.

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 6:38 PM

It’s always interesting to see so-called conservatives default to authoritarianism and big government positions. No, I’m not talking about George Will, but people like Lourdes.

Dante on April 12, 2012 at 6:39 PM

The surprising truth about heroin and addiction

sobincorporated on April 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Oh, please. Like the “surprising truth about single motherhood”: if you’re well-off, you can afford it and it won’t be too inconvenenient.

If you have the leisure, please find us an article about a fatherless young person who worked his way out of poverty with multiple low-paying jobs, commitment to education, saving, and being a quality employee, all while being a recreational H user.

People have been using hard drugs for thousands of years. In all societies in which the drugs have been considered socially acceptable, they have consistently turned their users helpless, hopeless, and feckless. No society remains robust and successful in which hard drugs are an accepted, mainstream practice.

J.E. Dyer on April 12, 2012 at 6:41 PM

No, the guy who can make it for $100 will be stopped by legislation written by the guy who sells it for $1000.

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Just like it has been by Phillip Morris and Anheauser Busch… oh wait… they didn’t do that at all.

Fail, bordering on epic.

You really like conflating alcoholic beverages with illicit drugs, don’t you?

Alcohol is a drug, plain and simple. That it is not illicit is a result of some people who managed to pull their heads out of their arses, saw what prohibition of alcohol did to society, and promptly fixed that rather foreseeable error.

Sound advice to today’s prohibitionists… pull your head out of your arse.

ou fail to see that once your favorite drugs are legalized they will be regulated by the FDA,

Just like alcohol and tobacco…

severely limiting who can produce them, likely only large pharma companies.

Except, despite your proclomations. so clearly borne of ignorance, that has not happened with other intoxicants, including generic prescription drugs.

Dumbassery abounds yet again.

That in turn limits how low the price can go, as pharmaceutical companies try not to be competitive but rather to control a market for as long as possible.

And yet the generic drug market, as opposed to cut rate cigarettes and microbrews, thrives, despite your predictions based on nothing but fantasy.

And government is complicit in that near monopoly. It will allow companies to engineer and patent their own stuff and ban everything that can be grown or produced by a regular Joe for the sake of taxation.

Then by your logic, we should prohibit medicine.

Dumbassery, yet again.

Beer is not regulated by the FDA other than for truth in labeling, because it is not sold by Anheuser Busch with claims it can cure anything other than a dry throat. No comparison.

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 6:32 PM

And yet you seem to think that cannabis, which nobody claims is a cure-all, will be regulated by them, and in fact regulated into monopoly, even though you can’t give an actual real-world example of that happening.

Face it, your on the losing side of history, and are intellectually bankrupt on this subject. Loser dumbasserry is more like it.

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 6:44 PM

As opposed to liquor store or pharmacy robberies?

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 5:26 PM

LOL — no, as opposed to cutting down crime. That was the going-in premise: that legalizing drugs will reduce drug crime. All you’ve done by pointing out that legal things get stolen is reinforce my point.

J.E. Dyer on April 12, 2012 at 6:48 PM

And to say that input costs have no bearing on the price of finished product is economic and business illiteracy on an astounding level. You should probably stop, before embarrassing yourself any further.

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM

What’s embarrassing is you incomprehension. The fact that you can make a pack of cigarrettes with ten cents worth of tobacco doesn’t keep it from retailing for $11 in NYC. The fact that 12 Oz of Coke costs less than a penny to make doesn’t keep vendors from selling it for $1.50 from a mall vending machine. And the fact that the cost alone of X oz of pot is Y dollars will have a similarly-trivial bearing on the cost of the reatil product out-the-door, given (a) perceived value and (b) all the taxes, regulation and inherent liability priced into the product.

There will be NO legalization until government is convinced it will receive in tax revenue an amount at least equal to what it perceives as the hard costs to government for resulting criminal behavior and addiction. It will NOT add the savings from the war on drugs to that total, but rather shift that spending elsewhere and tout it as a kind of “peace dividend.”

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Except, despite your proclomations. so clearly borne of ignorance, that has not happened with other intoxicants, including generic prescription drugs.

Dumbassery abounds yet again.

JohnGalt23

Yes, it certainly does. Where do “generic prescription drugs” come from? Why, from products developed by pharmeceutical companies, protected as monopolies for a little while so development costs could be recaptured and a decent profit made, and sold at much higher prices than after the patents run out and the generics can compete. You DO NOT HAVE real competition in the pharmeceutical industry. Too bad you simply can’t understand the mechanism by which legalized drugs will eventually be produced for maximum corporate profit and maximum tax revenue, and that mechanism leaves out all the little people who want to sell unpasturized milk off their own farms.

This is government. It’s not about your freedom. It never is. But the fulfilled dream of unlimited self-medication makes up for that, I suppose.

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 7:03 PM

And yet you seem to think that cannabis, which nobody claims is a cure-all, will be regulated by them, and in fact regulated into monopoly, even though you can’t give an actual real-world example of that happening.

JohnGalt23 on April 12, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Cannabis can be and has been cut with unsavory product to stretch supply. All drugs have. Such impurities are far more likely to kill because of direct injection into veins or lungs. That fact, common knowledge actually, is more than required for people to excuse more government regulation, even the user who might be just a bit paranoid of government, insuring what is being sold is what is stated on the package. Whatever wild west senario develops early on will quickly be consolidated into a few manageable distributors. It’s exceedingly predictable.

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM

People have been using hard drugs for thousands of years. In all societies in which the drugs have been considered socially acceptable, they have consistently turned their users helpless, hopeless, and feckless. No society remains robust and successful in which hard drugs are an accepted, mainstream practice.

J.E. Dyer on April 12, 2012 at 6:41 PM

You’re confusing legal and accepted. All drugs were legal in the U.S. for over 100 years, but they were socially unaccepted. What we have now is illegal drugs with widespread social acceptance, and that’s why we have a drug problem. Too many people are now socially accepting of drug use, so it doesn’t matter a hill of beans whether it’s legal or not. You make the mistake that so many conservatives make. You think you can legislate morality, but the truth is morality always leads legislation.

DFCtomm on April 12, 2012 at 7:17 PM

I want to legalize hard drugs as well. I actually want to legalize all drugs including all prescription drugs. That isn’t to say that you shouldn’t still get a prescription. By all means put a warning label on the drug that tells people they SHOULD get a doctor’s opinion before taking it. BUT once cautioned if people want to get the drug anyway, why force them to get the permission of a doctor? It’s their body.

Do doctors ask other doctors to write their prescriptions? I’m pretty sure they write them for themselves.

And this generally goes for the whole FDA. I think it’s a great idea for the FDA to check things out and put their seal of approval on things they feel are safe. BUT if people don’t care if something is FDA approved that is their business.

For example, you know those little kids that keep getting harassed for not having a vender license because their lemonade might not be healthy? Clearly the FDA has not approved their lemonade. So the kids can’t put an FDA approved seal on their drinks. It is incumbent upon the people that buy the lemonade to understand that there have been no scientific tests on the drinks and that the there is no guarantee that they are safe.

Effectively, buyer beware. And that means, the girls can sell their lemonade to anyone that thinks it’s safe.

Do that with everything.

If people care they can get their product tested. If they don’t they won’t. Rather then forcing everyone to get tested we can make it voluntary and the federal government can charge people whatever the tests cost for the privilege.

So for example, those stupid lead painted toys from china will be legal to resell from used toy shops without having to individually test every god damn one for lead. Simply make it clear at point of sale… these have not been tested.

Some people will care. For them, have the testing. Some won’t. For those, let them make their own choices.

This is about more then killing the cartels. It’s about wiping out a whole layer of unnecessary government bureaucracy.

Karmashock on April 12, 2012 at 7:38 PM

There will be NO legalization until government is convinced it will receive in tax revenue an amount at least equal to what it perceives as the hard costs to government for resulting criminal behavior and addiction. It will NOT add the savings from the war on drugs to that total, but rather shift that spending elsewhere and tout it as a kind of “peace dividend.”

shuzilla on April 12, 2012 at 6:49 PM

The government won’t legalize drugs now because they make too much money off of enforcement (asset forfeiture and bribes at various levels) and it gives them that much more control over the sheeple. Why do you think more and more cops are asking about “large amounts of cash” when stopping people for mere speeding violations? Who carries a few thousand around with them but drug dealers, right?

oryguncon on April 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM

SoCons in this thread proving once again that they are not conservative. They are nanny state hyper moralists.

They are the first to throw stones and the first to be hypocrites.

rickyricardo on April 12, 2012 at 8:21 PM

You’re confusing legal and accepted. All drugs were legal in the U.S. for over 100 years, but they were socially unaccepted. What we have now is illegal drugs with widespread social acceptance, and that’s why we have a drug problem. Too many people are now socially accepting of drug use, so it doesn’t matter a hill of beans whether it’s legal or not. You make the mistake that so many conservatives make. You think you can legislate morality, but the truth is morality always leads legislation.

DFCtomm on April 12, 2012 at 7:17 PM

The fun thing about the pre-criminalization era is that the drugs could be ordered through the Sears catalog. One of the major problems that society faced was the use of laudanum by mothers as well as morphine by ex-Civil War vets who had nothing else to ease their war wounds. Battlefield surgery was not the thing it is now, and the pain of those wounds did continue on as well as the addiction to the drugs used. Yet there was nothing better at the time and morphine had been hailed as a wonder drug.

The intolerance for intoxicants of various sorts started with Demon Rum and also the anti-Chinese attitude that went with opium dens. What is fascinating is that the US was born on hard liquor and got the first uprising of the new Nation that Washington had to put down. America has been on a slow and steady path from hard liquor to beer since the Founding era and by the time Sister Carrie arrived with her axe the shifting point of which form of alcohol was the favorite had been reached: Demon Rum was on the outs and beer was making great strides forward due to refrigeration.

The Opium trade in China got us the Shanghai Conference and from that the Harris Stamp Act which used the novel idea of a person needing tax stamps to possess marijuana and the government did print any stamps for it. So if you had the goods and wanted the stamps you were in violation of the law… a classic Catch-22 to enable the start of working against harder drugs. By the 1920′s doctors were being thrown in jail for administering drugs to addicts. Very Progressive this idea of demonizing and jailing doctors.

This expansion of the power of the federal government would lead, over time, to new federal institutions to deal with the crimes involved… because they were crimes as mandated by government. Today that means the federal government has expanded to intruding on intra-State commerce of illegal drugs that do not take part in any larger national market because there is no national market.

Government can utilize power to constrain people, but that is not the same as creating a positive moral climate. If that DID work then we wouldn’t have alcohol or anything other than prescription drugs… and cigarettes would be left as the last substance that isn’t banned. Unfortunately human nature does not work this way, and utilizing power to create a positive moral good is not something government can do as it is only a negative power granted to it by our negative liberty.

If you want to roll back Kelo, Raiche, and Wickard, then you are also looking to roll back federal power to its traditional limits before the Progressive era. That means State laws covering drugs, alcohol and other items, like firearms. Rolling back these powers is not guarantee of a better Nation, just one that finally realizes that tyrannical government can create no good and only punish us with our own money and reduce our liberty to nothing. That is a clear and stark dividing line between trusting your fellow man and being willing to help him on your own, or giving away eternal liberty for temporary security and government taking the burden from you of helping your fellow man, which in turn impoverishes you as you stop caring.

This is a choice that we are coming to. We are accustomed to handing off so much of our liberty to government and the responsibilities for them that we no longer think about them. And yet the moral duty and responsibility for them rests with us, not our government.

ajacksonian on April 12, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Drugs will never be legalized. Our Political/Law enforcement leaders make too much money off of it. Read the stories of Cocaine cowboys, Gary Webb, Rick Ross, etc…

It’s too much money involved. On tv they show the low level dealer and the user but why dont we ever hear of the millionaire backer to these deals getting arrested?

Whose bringing it into the inner cities? The amount of drug consumption in the us is outrageous. Someone has to “front” this product and collect later.

Dont count on these guys cutting off their money stream anytime soon.

Politricks on April 12, 2012 at 9:07 PM

There is a facet to this argument that hasn’t been considered. Product Liability lawsuits. Imagine the joy of the Class Action lawyers. Filing lawsuits after lawsuit for whatever company manufactured, imported, and sold the drugs for the ingredients that go into it.

Now, how many times have we read here, and on other sites, of companies that were virtually wiped out by lawsuits. Why not treat big narcotic cartels like big tobacco?

That would end the availability of drugs. When it cost the narcos tens of billions in legal fees every year just to answer the lawsuits.

Snake307 on April 12, 2012 at 10:36 PM

The greatest thing about this plan is you can always count on criminals to obey the law if you change a couple of things.

No one will think to sell hard drugs to kids or retards or the mentally ill.

Observation on April 12, 2012 at 10:42 PM

The Netherlands decided to no enforce any of their drug laws and allowed coffee houses to sell pot. How did that work out? An entire generation ruined. The pot lead to harder drugs. That lead to the users becoming disabled and unable to work, and since the damage is life long, so is the cost of caring for them by those that chose not to use drugs. People could not go to the parks with their children because of the needles lying everywhere and open drug use. Why, because drugs are addictive; they trigger the pleasure centers, at first, and later they are just needed to feel normal, at least what they now perceive as normal.

In our country the drug abuse creates crime as well as dependence because they are disable and cannot be employed due to drug use.

When they get money, as in the first of the month, it is gone in a day or two. The rest of the month is a constant looking for things to steal and sell to get the money they need for the drugs that will give them what they believe is normal, or at least a period of not caring about anything. Right now it is a problem mainly because the laws make it so difficult to be dealt with, but enough is done to keep it from getting worse than it already is. Take the laws away, or just issue a presidential order not to enforce them, and the problem becomes worse, much worse. It will not just be the families of crackheads that live in fear of what might be stolen or what might happen when they are crazed either because of a drug or for the lack of drugs, it will be everyone. And the socialist will be dancing in the streets as more people become dependent on the government for all their needs, paid for in higher taxes by the ones that chose not to use drugs.

The solution is to cut the cartels off. That means sealing the border with real people on the ground and effective deterrents that make it not worth the risk. We will have less of a problem with crime and crackheads that will never do anything but be an anchor on society. That will mean less taxes will be needed and a lot less crime. Legalize pot? It is the starter drug that leads to the harder stuff. Just ask any crackhead what got them started.

Franklyn on April 13, 2012 at 4:23 AM

All thanks to the drug war, prescription sudafed laws gone haywire:

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2012/04/predators-of-marengo-county.html

All over cough medicine!

oryguncon on April 13, 2012 at 5:56 AM

Replacing cartels with the Government. Sounds like that will work out fine. You can use the Tobacco and Alcohol as a keen example of how that will work out with Highly addictive substances. FARC and the Taliban will be thrilled to help out.

Egfrow on April 13, 2012 at 11:01 AM

How about ending the welfare state, so that I and the rest of the taxpayers don’t have to pay anything for degenerate junkies?
Rebar on April 12, 2012 at 4:51 PM

iam tired of paying for youth getting hurt playing sports.iam tired of paying money to recue people who are getting their jollies doing things like mountain climbing and hiking.iam tired of paying money keeping people in jail for injesting somthing that isnt any of your freaking business.

just maybe your F welfare state wouldnt be so G DAMN big if wasnt people like you wanting to keep people who injest drugs in jail,then when they get out they cant get a F job because their x F-ing cons!!!!!

svs22422 on April 13, 2012 at 12:34 PM

another thing.maybe if companies did ACTUAL IMPAIRMENT TEST instead of the FASCIST random piss,blood or hair test maybe people could keep their F jobs!!!!

svs22422 on April 13, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Franklyn on April 13, 2012 at 4:23 AM

I find it bloody hilarious that the fair-weather conservatives, who LOVE to (legitimately) point out all the places that, say, Communism has been tried and didn’t work…then will promptly pull a 180 when it comes to drug legalization.

It’s been tried. It didn’t work. It KILLED people and cost the places that tried it a king’s ransom.

MelonCollie on April 13, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Wanting to prevent some from doing harm to others is making a moral judgment.

J.E. Dyer on April 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM

But…but…but…legislating morality is WRONG!!! /liberaltarian

Foolish little children.

MelonCollie on April 13, 2012 at 1:45 PM

just maybe your F welfare state wouldnt be so G DAMN big if wasnt people like you wanting to keep people who injest drugs in jail,then when they get out they cant get a F job because their x F-ing cons!!!!!

svs22422 on April 13, 2012 at 12:34 PM

another thing.maybe if companies did ACTUAL IMPAIRMENT TEST instead of the FASCIST random piss,blood or hair test maybe people could keep their F jobs!!!!

svs22422 on April 13, 2012 at 12:54 PM

It’s ALWAYS someone elses’ fault. Maybe you need to simply choose between junk and a job. Nobody gives a rats ass whether you feel you can do your job with drugs in your system. It’s a matter of liability for your prospective employer, not about your entitlement to a job because you think you’re just awesome at it.

If employers won’t hire people who test positive for drugs, then what does it matter if they are also convicts? Your first argument is negated by your last. Legalization will have no bearing on whether users get hired – unless and until addiction is covered by ADA and as a result employers are barred from discriminating against addicts in favor of non-addicts.

shuzilla on April 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM

But…but…but…legislating morality is WRONG!!! /liberaltarian

Foolish little children.

MelonCollie

I would say that is more of a libertarian ideal, where as long as you are not harming someone else, you are free to do what you want. Wanna smoke pot at home? Go for it. Gonna go out and drive impaired, no go.

When you bring morality into it, it would be not being allowed to do something because of how it may harm yourself, or because of some people see something as ungodly or evil.

Morality would be making it illegal to drink alcohol at all. A libertarian ideal would be that consume what you want as long as you are not going to go out and drive impaired afterwards.

Morality can be about trying to save someone from themselves, by regulating personal behavior, and not just doing it out of concern for others.

firepilot on April 13, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3