From: charless@sco.COM (charles stross)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs [was Re: Drug testing and welfare]
Organization: The Somewhat Contagious Operation, Inc.
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 07:51:25 GMT


In article <24643@castle.ed.ac.uk> fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
>charless@sco.COM (charles stross) writes:
>
>[Re: Nomi's article on legalisation...]
>
>>But there are reasons why it won't happen any time real soon.

[ ... deleted. We've seen this before. ... ]

(FYI, just in case you weren't sure, I'm in favour of unconditional
legalization -- I'm just trying to play devil's advocate.)

Mike sez:
>It's true that some folks who would otherwise be processed by the
>Justice system and incarcerated would be left on the streets. They'd
>also be unable to supplement their income by trading in narcotics. the
>question is, is it really cheaper to tie up the Police, the justice
>system, and the jails, than to leave them on the streets where through
>lack of any choice, they might just resort to flipping burgers? If they
>choose to steal instead then you're only back to where you were
>originally anyway. It doesn't look like a losing position.

Objection: you've got to do something about the poverty trap.
The main incentive for poor (( == fiscally challenged, in PC-speak :))
kids to turn to drug dealing is because it's about the only visible
way of getting rich, as opposed to living off welfare or flipping
burgers. There are any number of alternatives, though. Look how the
'30's bootleggers moved in gambling, protection and other, uh,
undesirable side-lines. 

Given the huge amount of capital that's been pumped into the illegal
drugs industry, I wouldn't be surprised if the immediate post-
legalization phase sees a massive _rise_ in some categories of
organizes racketeering; specifically the areas that don't make as
large a profit margin as drugs do today. Legalization will also
divert some funds _away_ from the already-impoverished ghetto 
areas.

>Also the non-problem folks who were caught in the prohibition net would
>be left alone to remain economic producers. however you cut it,
>abandoning prohibition ought to save and generate wealth in the economy.

Absolutely. But it's not totally clear-cut, and the ``I've got mine,
fuck you'' approach of most politicians isn't going to help -- the
trouble with the people in power is that most of them are quite old,
with a life expactancy <= 20 years. They couldn't give a shit if 
their policies screw things up for us in 30 years' time, because they'll
be good and gone by then. If they can perceive a _short_-term profit
to be made in keeping drugs illegal, versus a smaller _long_-term
profit in legalization, they'll pick the short term every time.

Here's a scary thought; most of today's political leaders matured
and formed their viewpoints during the 50's and 60's. What are 
things going to be like when the 70's and 80's generation gets
into office -- the kids who grew up in the shadow of the past, in
a prevailing ethos of ``get it while the getting's good'' ?
 
>Addendum for the braindead: the arguments here were purely economic,
>retorts based on emotion or "morality" will be ignored.

Seconded.

>FoFP


-- 
This .sig file has been rescued by the Sigfile Liberation Front