Who's the millionaire that Rand didn't like?

A good example of what would happen if heroin were decriminalized is what happened when alcohol was decriminalized. When prohibition was repealed, did we see an explosion of drunkenness with people everywhere lining the gutters, completely wasted and helpless? Of course, we didn't, but neither did we see public drunkenness disappear. Today, we have a serious problem with drunk drivers, who kill and maim people on the roads. But we no longer have a problem with criminal gangs controlling alcohol and shooting up rival gang members. Nor do we have a problem with poor inner-city youths getting involved in dealing alcohol and ending up dead or in jail.

The last year of Prohibition, 1933, there were 12,124 homicides and 7,863 assaults with firearms; by 1941, the numbers had declined to 8,048 and 4,525, respectively. We could expect similar results with a repeal of drug prohibition. We could also expect inner-city crime and incarceration to decline significantly.

Still, the question is, would decriminalization encourage drug use. Probably not. In the Netherlands and Alaska, where marijuana is legal, the rate of consumption is lower than in the continental U.S., where marijuana is illegal. In fact, the association of prohibition with a higher incidence of drug use may well be due to prohibition itself, which has made drugs more illicit and therefore more attractive. Making drugs legal could eliminate their lure as forbidden fruit. Even within the U.S., there has been a decline in the use of drugs that are legal -- namely, tobacco and alcohol.

To put the danger of drugs in perspective: in one year, 337 people died in swimming pool accidents, whereas no one died that year from using marijuana. It is true that the total consumption of all other illicit drugs that same year killed 3,562 people -- yet even this unfortunate number pales by comparison to the number of people killed by alcohol, 100,000, and by tobacco, 300,000. Heart disease, largely the result of improper diet and lifestyle, kills as many as 750,000 people a year.

Our government is obsessed with the dangers of illegal drugs, which it has blown completely out of proportion in relation to other dangers, including those of legal drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco is more addictive than heroin, and far more people die from it than from heroin. The government only stopped subsidizing tobacco five years ago -- subsidizing it! -- even as it was prohibiting so benign a drug as marijuana. That should tell you all you need to know about the rationality and integrity of its drug policy.

- Bill

Post 21

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 1:31am

Bill writes:

"That should tell you all you need to know about the rationality and integrity of its drug policy."

I agree with the sentiment about the obvious irrational contradiction between what politicians say is their intent and what they do. But it is important to look at programs like these and see what the real agenda is. Any half-way intelligent person in government knows the facts that Bill outlines, and yet they persist anyway. I suggest that the actual reason that the drug crusade has been latched onto by politicians, is because it has proven to be one of a number of convenient tool for breaching the sanctity of the individual and gaining power and control over us all. In every case, such as with the war on drugs, a fear campaign is waged by propagandizing (exaggerating and suppressing certain information) so as to create the appearance of an imminent threat to one's safety. Then the government "acts" to "protect" the "public" from this threat. In the course, they reach further into our pockets for funds which then become available for their discretionary disposal while at the same time asserting the "authority" to breach our privacy and dictate how we can live and act. If you get enough of these programs in place, you can effectively tread into some area or another of interest to most individuals. The real goal is not to successfully prosecute these programs, but to simply have them in place as a means of keeping people "in line". The goal is to make everyone a criminal so that they can be constrained, Toohey-style, whenever it is judged necessary.

I expect to get a lot of flak for this view, so I will say up front that, no, I do not believe that this is the sum total of what every politician is about and that there are certainly some people in government that are genuinely trying to solve real problems. But when I look at the our elected officials from the local to the federal level, I see the majority as playing the game of gaining and then exercising power and control over others. A great deal of the legislation passed in this country pays lip-service to safety, but is more about control. In the case of the war on drugs, if the real aim was to effectively eliminate drug availability and use in this country, how could honest politicians continue to spend upwards of $40 billion dollars annually while achieving the results that they do?

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 22

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 8:14am

No flak, a green jacket!

Post 23

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 12:44pm

Bill:

To put the danger of drugs in perspective: in one year, 337 people died in swimming pool accidents, whereas no one died that year from using marijuana.

That clinches it then. We need to ban pools.

:)

Jeff:

I agree with the sentiment about the obvious irrational contradiction between what politicians say is their intent and what they do. But it is important to look at programs like these and see what the real agenda is. Any half-way intelligent person in government knows the facts that Bill outlines, and yet they persist anyway. I suggest that the actual reason that the drug crusade has been latched onto by politicians, is because it has proven to be one of a number of convenient tool for breaching the sanctity of the individual and gaining power and control over us all.

Don't underestimate the effect of citizen nannies whom are mostly irrational stupid mothers who will believe anything will kill their children unless they do something about it. Just look at the nonsense laws MADD always lobbies to get passed. They are the ones that got the legal drinking limit lowered to 0.08 among a whole bunch of other draconian liquor laws. We are too much of a democracy, so I wouldn't put all the blame on the politicians, whom are really just trying to satisfy their constituents to get re-elected.

Post 24

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 1:00pm

that was the whole thing about the Founding Fathers - they did NOT WANT a democracy, but rather, "a Republic, if you can keep it", as Ben Franklin said...

Post 25

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 2:23pm

Thanks for chiming in, Bill -- and showing Jon what the reality of legalized heroin would look like under free market mechanics. Apparently, he would or could not see -- actually, imagine -- this reality before. I do hope it changes his mind.

Jon, I like you. You are a good man. I am not kidding. However, I do not see a time when we stop bickering like we usually do.

If we were real-life friends, I would bicker with you just as much, I'm sure (perhaps more, I don't know). I appreciate you. You ... you complete me, Jon. Okay, that's not quite accurate. Okay, it's not at all accurate. I mean, I don't get a tingling running up my leg when you speak -- like that liberal "news anchor" says he does (every time Obama speaks). I just appreciate our quibbling for what it is, that's all.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/26, 2:25pm)

Post 26

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 2:43pm

John wrote:

"Don't underestimate the effect of citizen nannies"

John:

I'm with you 100% here. And again, while I think that there is always a veneer of "safety" presented by these individuals and groups as well, underlying that is the same drive for power. In other words, the desire to impose their personal definition of the "one right way to live" upon others. Only they do it by proxy through lobbying their elected officials to pass laws in areas where government has no business treading. I am sure that if people were offered the magic power to snap their fingers and immediately have everyone else live by the values and decisions that they choose for themselves, the majority of people would not hesitate to exercise that option. And that includes the hypocrites who don't actually practice what they preach! Most would sacrifice their own autonomy for the opportunity to force others to toe the line.

Many people seem to have trouble relating to Dominique in The Fountainhead. However, when I read the book at the age of twelve, it was Elsworth Toohey that seemed completely alien to me. I could not fathom that he represented the way anyone could approach other people. It took me many years to wake up to the fact that envy of the good was so prevalent in the world. Now, I wonder if I haven't swung too far the other direction, seeing this trait where it doesn't exist. But when I listen to the reasoning given by most people for voting for BO in the last election, I'm sad to say that I see this characteristic operating in full force. The desire to clamp down on the freedoms of others seems to have no boundaries, of course, always proposed in the fearful wake of some perceived threat. As Robert said, the concept of a constitutionally limited government has, to a goodly extent, been replaced by an unconstrained "democracy".

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 27

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 3:53pm

I wrote, "To put the danger of drugs in perspective: in one year, 337 people died in swimming pool accidents, whereas no one died that year from using marijuana."

John replied, "That clinches it then. We need to ban pools."

Damn! I knew someone would draw that conclusion. John, please! I'm addicted to swimming pools. If swimming pools are banned, I'll be forced to experiment with ever more dangerous substances, like lakes and rivers and even shark-infested waters.

And please don't tell me that I'm all wet or that I should go jump in the lake. I'm trying to be reasonable here!

- Bill

Post 28

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 4:09pm

"To put the danger of drugs in perspective: in one year, 337 people died in swimming pool accidents, whereas no one died that year from using marijuana."

It should be kept in mind that marijuana is a uniquely non-toxic neuroactive chemical substance. One can eat pounds of it without lethal effect. It is much easier to die from coffee or aspirin intoxication which requires on the order of 100 doses.

Morbidity due to marijuana is caused by the side effects of smoking it.

Not that any of this is an argument for criminalization.

Post 29

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 4:51pm

Ed,

You write: �Thanks for chiming in, Bill -- and showing Jon what the reality of legalized heroin would look like under free market mechanics.�

And, �You ... you complete me, Jon.�

That�s all very sweet. But you said heroin dealers would go out of business, none could stay rich, in a free market.

Bill said heroin decriminalization would follow alcohols�. Have you noticed that alcohol is big business with the leaders� sales in the tens of billions?

Your line about free markets teaching people to be virtuous is not supported by Bill�s post, because what you meant is that people would become so virtuous as to make the heroin market so small that no one could get rich in it. Clearly, Bill has not gone along with that.

Nice try though.

Post 30

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 6:04pm

Jon,

You sort of got me on that part about the billion-dollar beer companies. No, that's not really accurate. It's more like you totally got me, on that one.

;-)

Okay, so Bill wasn't saying that beer companies did worse after their product was legalized. He said the misuse and abuse of alcohol -- which are related to the demand for alcohol -- didn't dramatically increase. The same can be expected from heroin, the demand wouldn't dramatically increase (though the number of suppliers would). Increased supply without a corresponding increase in demand lowers prices. Lower prices lower profits so, unless one can monopolize a method to minimize production costs, the billionaire heroin dealers (the ones we have now) would find themselves going by the wayside.

Jon, the next time you're having dinner with a billionaire heroin dealer, I want you to ask him one thing: Would you like for us to dicriminalize your product?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/26, 6:05pm)

Post 31

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 6:25pm

Yes - more likely, they'd all be like a bunch of micro-brewers...

Post 32

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 6:51pm

Ed: �The same can be expected from heroin, the demand wouldn't dramatically increase (though the number of suppliers would). Increased supply without a corresponding increase in demand lowers prices. Lower prices lower profits so, unless one can monopolize a method to minimize production costs, the billionaire heroin dealers (the ones we have now) would find themselves going by the wayside.�

The ones we have, yes. Just as the gang-shits who used to be big in alcohol went away. Their specialty was gangsterism/violence. Talents that bring one to the top in an illegal field don�t do one any good upon legalization.

You asked me to ask a heroin dealer of today if he wants the stuff legalized. Of course, HE will say no. Just as Capone would have answered me, �no.� So what? This proves they know what you know, that the business would be so small that no one could get rich in it? False. Coors would have answered me, �yes.�

Robert: �more likely, they'd all be like a bunch of micro-brewers...�

Mere assertion unsupported and countered by historical fact.

Why doesn�t today�s alcohol business consist of mere moon-shiners and micros?

Post 33

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 7:16pm

Jon, how could you possibly expect Robert to offer support for any of his assertions, which are limited by his nature to one ungrammatical partial sentence at a time, inevitably trailing off in a dr...

Post 34

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 8:18pm

Ye right, Jon - suppliers be limited, and many dealers - tho doubt there'd be as much interest in heroin as is alcohol, tho possible...

Post 35

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 9:11pm

It doesn�t matter if interest in heroin and the resulting size of the market is as big as for alcohol, or not.

Even if the heroin business remained unconsolidated in many micros, those many micros would make much money, just as today�s beer micros constitute real businesses with real people getting rich�they are not mom-and-pop guilds. So Ed would still be wrong.

A fortune magazine article states that: �The global drug trade may run up to $500 billion a year, more than twice the value of all U.S. currency in circulation. The American market, the world's biggest ! for these drugs, produces annual revenues of at least $100 billion at retail -- twice what U.S. consumers spend for oil.
(http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1988/06/20/70695/index.htm)

Diageo (Baileys, J&B, Guinness) did $16 Billion in sales last year. Anheuser-Busch did $18 Billion.

Now those are mom-and-pops.

And Ed, it doesn�t matter that prices will drop�you are in error in your belief that lower post-decriminalization prices would mean lower profits. Cost to produce would drop, causing lower prices. (Costs are now high due to illegality.) Producer costs can drop�bringing lower prices�while profitability remains quite intact. Just ask Anheuser-Busch.

Post 36

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 10:12pm

I�ve been so rough with you, Ed. But you were such a jackass with the �cocoon� and �honest� and �disagreeable��when I was being so damn nice. Still, I don�t see why we should ever stop bickering, or worry about it too much. Do you know you complete me, too? You research like a mad dog.

So look this up for everyone�s benefit. I don�t know any answers yet, so it�s an honest challenge.

We need to know what the per person dollar outlays for alcohol were in some years prior to prohibition, and the per person dollar outlays for alcohol for some years AFTER prohibition. (20�s dot-com-like indulging vs. depression 30�s would be too biased. Perhaps teens or twenties vs. forties or fifties? Again, per person.

This will give us a ratio of pre and post. Am I right that it would also be inclusive of illegal-inflated pricing (and other virtue-relevant conditions) coming down to market-realistic, and therefore would yield a fundamentally fair ratio that we can then apply to today�s world ($500 billion) and American ($100 billion) now illegal markets? (These last figures need confirmation, as well.)

Edit: Sorry. I should have written �during prohibition.� The first comparative should be during prohibition.

Edit II: And don�t Robert or anyone else say that heroin�s market would shrink due to its inherent undesirability compared to alcohol.

To the extent you are right then current outlays for the stuff is reflective of the fact, that is, total outlays would indeed be larger if the stuff wasn�t so nasty. And total outlays would be smaller is the stuff was any less craved. Nevertheless, current outlays are what they are and the alcohol during vs. post ratio, I think, should be applied to it directly.

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 1/26, 10:33pm)

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 1/26, 11:12pm)

Post 37

Monday, January 26, 2009 - 10:51pm

And the final step will be to break the to-be-mathematically-derived post-decriminalization heroin market* into three leaders, using as a guide the top three leaders in alcohol as % of alcohol market.

In other words, if the alcohol market is 1,000 big, and the top three leaders are 250, 150 and 100 big, then we will conclude that the heroin market of $X annual sales would be lead by three top players like this: 25% of X, 15% of X and 10% of X.

* I realize that the $100 B and $500 B figures suggested earlier are all drugs and bigger than the specific heroin market.

Post 38

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 12:35am

I couldn�t wait. I found one citation of the global heroin market (of 2005?) of $65 billion.
http://www.havocscope.com/Drugs/heroin.htm

Until Ed does the during vs. post prohibition for alcohol, I won�t know whether to cut $65 billion in half or to double it. I am going to cut it 90%. And I am going to assume 25%, 15% and 10% of the total market for each of the top three leaders (this is assumed to be a fair guess based on the alcohol market, but I don�t know the actual market shares of the three top leaders in alcohol.)

So, a current $65 billion annual market in heroin drops by 90% post legalization to $6 and a half billion. The leaders of this market would have annual sales of:
1) $1,600 million
2) $975 million
3) $650 million

With annual sales around $1 billion, there�s bound to be some hectomillions being made.

Q. E. Frickin� D, Ed.

Post 39

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 6:07am