Prohibition Makes Drug Dealers Richer - NPR - Page 5

On April 15 2011 22:51 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On April 15 2011 19:05 Night2o1 wrote: Have you ever smoked pot in the future-USA where pot has been legalized? 30 years smoking is pretty irrelevant to the topic ok, you go ahead believe in that Utopian future where everything is just as you want it to be, or dream of it's possibilities. All I am saying is there is no path to legalization that makes drugs more readily available, lower in cost, with sweet people selling the product, and no crimes being committed. With legalization will come regulation. With regulation will come corporations. Gone will be the small time peddler, he won't have access to product. Competition will diminish, and prices will go up accordingly. Taxes will be applied, and as history shows, they will go up every year. You will have to buy what they are offering. Prices will rise. Quality will fall under the jurisdiction of the FDA, it will be manipulated and controlled. Potency will be reduced, so you'll have to buy more, and pay more taxes. ATF will be in charge of enforcement, making sure only licensed and taxed product is out there, still stamping out smuggling and sending people to prison. Prices will rise, and junkies will still be junkies, incapable of working, resorting to stealing. But prices will be higher, and they will need to steal more. Or prostitute themselves, or panhandle in the streets. They will still need their fix, and it will still cost money, even more than before. We will wish it was still illegal

this post is filled with so many assumptions, so pessimistic, I will laugh when a joint sells for the price of a cigarrette.

On April 15 2011 09:55 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On April 14 2011 16:45 devon06atX wrote: . . . .in other news - during the time of prohibition (the noble experiment), numerous syndicates profited immensely from extremely high-priced alcohol due to the inherent illegal nature of it. This isn't correct at all, it wasn't extremely high priced at all. They profited because there was still a huge market for the product, and they produced it in large quantities to meet that demand.

Is this a level?

Anyways, instead of saying "are you friggin kidding me, you actually believe the price didn't go up!?!" I decided to look up some academic journal articles for you.

Instead of just linking them (you probably don't have access to these online scholar databases), I figured I'd throw in some parts that are relevant.

"Perhaps the most incontrovertible effect of prohibition is an upward shift in
the supply curve for drugs. Enforcement and potential legal punishment effectively
impose a "tax" on suppliers, thereby raising the costs of supplying drugs. This tax
includes the jail sentences and fines that drug suppliers face if apprehended, along
with any costs that suppliers incur in evading detection. In addition, supply costs
increase because drug suppliers cannot rely on the legal and judicial system to
enforce contracts or resolve disputes.
Prohibition is also likely to shift the demand curve for drugs downward. This
shift results from legal penalties for possession of drugs, greater uncertainty about
product quality, additional costs and danger associated with transactions in an illegal
market and a "respect for the law" under which individuals abstain from"
illegal acts. Page 176

And a very good one.

... "widespread evidence indicates
that prices of prohibited goods-be they drugs, alcohol or prostitutionare
higher under prohibition. For example, Warburton (1932) estimates that alcohol
prices were approximately three times higher during alcohol Prohibition
than beforehand, and Morgan (1991) estimates that cocaine currently sells for at
least 20 times its free market price." page 177

Oh man, tons of good stuff in this article that support my earlier statement

"The behavior of the murder rate in the United States further supports the
claim that prohibition increases violence (Friedman, 1991). The murder rate rose
rapidly after 1910, when many states adopted drug and alcohol prohibition laws.
The rate also rose through World War I, when alcohol and drugs were first prohibited
nationally, and it continued to rise during the 1920s as efforts to enforce alcohol
prohibition increased. The rate then fell dramatically after Prohibition's repeal
in 1934 and (except for wartime) remained at modest levels for several decades.
In the late 1960s, the rate increased dramatically again and stayed at
historically high levels through the 1970s and 1980s, coinciding with a drastic increase
in drug law enforcement." Page 178

Anyways, I have a final in about 6 hours that I'm cramming for, so I don't feel like reading the rest of this academic journal. If you want the info for it, here it is -

Hope this enlightened you on a couple things.

The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition
Author(s): Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel
Source: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 175-192
Published by: American Economic Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138396 .
Accessed: 16/04/2011 01:24

edit: I still laugh when I see the title of this thread. It's like saying "The NBA makes professional basketball players richer"

On April 16 2011 00:19 LikeASet wrote: this post is filled with so many assumptions, so pessimistic, I will laugh when a joint sells for the price of a cigarrette.

Don't hold your breath

On April 16 2011 00:35 devon06atX wrote: Show nested quote + On April 15 2011 09:55 curtinsea wrote:   On April 14 2011 16:45 devon06atX wrote: . . . .in other news - during the time of prohibition (the noble experiment), numerous syndicates profited immensely from extremely high-priced alcohol due to the inherent illegal nature of it. This isn't correct at all, it wasn't extremely high priced at all. They profited because there was still a huge market for the product, and they produced it in large quantities to meet that demand. Is this a level? Anyways, instead of saying "are you friggin kidding me, you actually believe the price didn't go up!?!" I decided to look up some academic journal articles for you. Instead of just linking them (you probably don't have access to these online scholar databases), I figured I'd throw in some parts that are relevant. "Perhaps the most incontrovertible effect of prohibition is an upward shift in the supply curve for drugs. Enforcement and potential legal punishment effectively impose a "tax" on suppliers, thereby raising the costs of supplying drugs. This tax includes the jail sentences and fines that drug suppliers face if apprehended, along with any costs that suppliers incur in evading detection. In addition, supply costs increase because drug suppliers cannot rely on the legal and judicial system to enforce contracts or resolve disputes. Prohibition is also likely to shift the demand curve for drugs downward. This shift results from legal penalties for possession of drugs, greater uncertainty about product quality, additional costs and danger associated with transactions in an illegal market and a "respect for the law" under which individuals abstain from" illegal acts. Page 176 And a very good one. ... "widespread evidence indicates that prices of prohibited goods-be they drugs, alcohol or prostitutionare higher under prohibition. For example, Warburton (1932) estimates that alcohol prices were approximately three times higher during alcohol Prohibition than beforehand, and Morgan (1991) estimates that cocaine currently sells for at least 20 times its free market price." page 177 Oh man, tons of good stuff in this article that support my earlier statement "The behavior of the murder rate in the United States further supports the claim that prohibition increases violence (Friedman, 1991). The murder rate rose rapidly after 1910, when many states adopted drug and alcohol prohibition laws. The rate also rose through World War I, when alcohol and drugs were first prohibited nationally, and it continued to rise during the 1920s as efforts to enforce alcohol prohibition increased. The rate then fell dramatically after Prohibition's repeal in 1934 and (except for wartime) remained at modest levels for several decades. In the late 1960s, the rate increased dramatically again and stayed at historically high levels through the 1970s and 1980s, coinciding with a drastic increase in drug law enforcement." Page 178 Anyways, I have a final in about 6 hours that I'm cramming for, so I don't feel like reading the rest of this academic journal. If you want the info for it, here it is - Hope this enlightened you on a couple things. The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition Author(s): Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel Source: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 175-192 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138396 . Accessed: 16/04/2011 01:24 edit: I still laugh when I see the title of this thread. It's like saying "The NBA makes professional basketball players richer"

Surely you realize that economists don't all agree on anything, but I thank you for putting forth the effort. I'm glad you got something out of that education you parents paid for.

Smart kids are still kids. No book is a substitute for experience.

Keep dreaming, drugs will never be legalized in the USA

since when did we have 2 Baals?

On April 16 2011 01:09 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On April 16 2011 00:35 devon06atX wrote:   On April 15 2011 09:55 curtinsea wrote:   On April 14 2011 16:45 devon06atX wrote: . . . .in other news - during the time of prohibition (the noble experiment), numerous syndicates profited immensely from extremely high-priced alcohol due to the inherent illegal nature of it. This isn't correct at all, it wasn't extremely high priced at all. They profited because there was still a huge market for the product, and they produced it in large quantities to meet that demand. Is this a level? Anyways, instead of saying "are you friggin kidding me, you actually believe the price didn't go up!?!" I decided to look up some academic journal articles for you. Instead of just linking them (you probably don't have access to these online scholar databases), I figured I'd throw in some parts that are relevant. "Perhaps the most incontrovertible effect of prohibition is an upward shift in the supply curve for drugs. Enforcement and potential legal punishment effectively impose a "tax" on suppliers, thereby raising the costs of supplying drugs. This tax includes the jail sentences and fines that drug suppliers face if apprehended, along with any costs that suppliers incur in evading detection. In addition, supply costs increase because drug suppliers cannot rely on the legal and judicial system to enforce contracts or resolve disputes. Prohibition is also likely to shift the demand curve for drugs downward. This shift results from legal penalties for possession of drugs, greater uncertainty about product quality, additional costs and danger associated with transactions in an illegal market and a "respect for the law" under which individuals abstain from" illegal acts. Page 176 And a very good one. ... "widespread evidence indicates that prices of prohibited goods-be they drugs, alcohol or prostitutionare higher under prohibition. For example, Warburton (1932) estimates that alcohol prices were approximately three times higher during alcohol Prohibition than beforehand, and Morgan (1991) estimates that cocaine currently sells for at least 20 times its free market price." page 177 Oh man, tons of good stuff in this article that support my earlier statement "The behavior of the murder rate in the United States further supports the claim that prohibition increases violence (Friedman, 1991). The murder rate rose rapidly after 1910, when many states adopted drug and alcohol prohibition laws. The rate also rose through World War I, when alcohol and drugs were first prohibited nationally, and it continued to rise during the 1920s as efforts to enforce alcohol prohibition increased. The rate then fell dramatically after Prohibition's repeal in 1934 and (except for wartime) remained at modest levels for several decades. In the late 1960s, the rate increased dramatically again and stayed at historically high levels through the 1970s and 1980s, coinciding with a drastic increase in drug law enforcement." Page 178 Anyways, I have a final in about 6 hours that I'm cramming for, so I don't feel like reading the rest of this academic journal. If you want the info for it, here it is - Hope this enlightened you on a couple things. The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition Author(s): Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel Source: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 175-192 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138396 . Accessed: 16/04/2011 01:24 edit: I still laugh when I see the title of this thread. It's like saying "The NBA makes professional basketball players richer" Surely you realize that economists don't all agree on anything, but I thank you for putting forth the effort. I'm glad you got something out of that education you parents paid for. Smart kids are still kids. No book is a substitute for experience. Keep dreaming, drugs will never be legalized in the USA

Wow, that was pretty condescending. Just because someone clearly proves you're wrong about something, doesn't mean you have to take it as an insult and react in such a way.

Please provide me with legitimate evidence (peer-reviewed articles, journals, published pieces of work, whatever) that support your claim that I was wrong in saying that prohibition did indeed raise the price of alcohol. I took the time to respond to you with proper evidence backing what I claimed, and if you're going to be so abrasive and stubborn in your responses and stance, I ask you to do the same.

As for experience - I highly doubt that you were old enough to be a customer at the speakeasy's. Regarding drugs being legalized in the states - I don't know, nor does anyone for that matter. More importantly, I don't give a shit. All I claimed was that prohibition did in fact raise the price of booze (by three times too apparently, was unaware it was that much), as it does other illegal things, and that yes, violent crime does increase as a result of the huge profit potential.

Instead of speaking down to you, I'll ask you nicely again. Please provide me with verifable evidence about the stances you claim I'm wrong on.

Oh, and about the 'parents paid for my education' jab, sadly, I'm the sole owner of this debt

On April 16 2011 01:30 LikeASet wrote: since when did we have 2 Baals?

I was born with two Baals, weren't you?

On April 16 2011 01:33 devon06atX wrote: Wow, that was pretty condescending. Just because someone clearly proves you're wrong about something, doesn't mean you have to take it as an insult and react in such a way.

I was just mocking you back, if it's good for you it's good for me too.

Please provide me with legitimate evidence (peer-reviewed articles, journals, published pieces of work, whatever) that support your claim that I was wrong in saying that prohibition did indeed raise the price of alcohol. I took the time to respond to you with proper evidence backing what I claimed, and if you're going to be so abrasive and stubborn in your responses and stance, I ask you to do the same.

Alright, I'll come back with something in a day or two, but it won't matter to you, so it's probably moot. And you are being just as stubborn and abrasive as I, perhaps more so. I didn't insult anyone in any of my comments until you chimed in with a shot at me, something so typical of this site, I wonder why I ever come back here.

As for experience - I highly doubt that you were old enough to be a customer at the speakeasy's. Regarding drugs being legalized in the states - I don't know, nor does anyone for that matter. More importantly, I don't give a shit. All I claimed was that prohibition did in fact raise the price of booze (by three times too apparently, was unaware it was that much), as it does other illegal things, and that yes, violent crime does increase as a result of the huge profit potential.

nope, not that old, but as old as your parents I bet. Funny thing about getting older, your perspective changes. You learn a lot more from experience than you do from books. You don't become a great poker player by reading supersystem alone, you gotta put in the hands.

Instead of speaking down to you, I'll ask you nicely again. Please provide me with verifable evidence about the stances you claim I'm wrong on.

You didn't ask me nicely yet, so since you finally did, sort of,
I will look. I may have to concede you are right on this issue. That alone doesn't change my view of how legalization would turn out if it were to actually happen.

Good point, I'm just being a sensitive little pansy atm... sleep deprivation + exams will do that. Shouldn't have got so offended. I'm actually extremely (in my own prejudiced opinion.. heh) open-minded about most stuff (with the exception of most feminist trains of thought, which I write tomorrow.. fml), so if I'm wrong, and you can show me how, and how it's argued/proven, etc. I'm more than interested. It's good to get more than one opinion on things, especially controversial ones.

I actually enjoy a good debate. Typically on lp tho, it's just people stubbornly throwing around unjustified opinions and not listening to anything with an open mind, so I'm actually surprised and glad at your last paragraph.

About how it would work in the states, I can only guess based on my already existing beliefs and assumptions. Societal structures regarding all things (church, state, marital status of homosexuals, perceptions of 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' activities, etc.) takes a long time to change and people to adjust to. But yeah, I'm a firm believer in basically legalizing and regulating essentially everything. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that this would never fly as people are staunch supporters against various things for various reasons.

Also, where do you draw the line? Cocaine? Heroine? It's a complicated issue. However, I do believe that some of the issues regarding regulation and legalization could be much easier found in subjects such as pot, prostitution, shrooms, etc. due to fact it's not nearly as 'extreme' a topic for most.

On April 15 2011 22:53 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On April 15 2011 22:42 PillPoppin wrote: lol. tough guy on the block been smoking pot for 30 years. shit bro, don't get too crazy and eat an entire bag of cheetos while you watch futurama reruns. Weed has been effectively legalized (here in the sunny state of California), and prices have not changed. What do you pay for weed down there?

40-50 an 8th is in the standard acceptable range for decent-'fire' kindof stuff.

When i was in the street pharmaceuticals business my stuff sold crazy fast at 40 an 8th.

40 for an 1/8th of an ounce is the standard rate or about 3.6 or so grams.

You guys do realise that tobacco is like a few buck an OUNCE.

and we pay HEAVY taxes on cigs. (well over 50% of what we pay is tax i believe) but if someone refutes that I'll go look it up.

It's hard to imagine how taxes and regulation will cause the price of weed to go up even more than it is now currently. It's ridiculously cheap and easy to produce weed. And big corporations can easily build the right infrastructure to produce decent to high quality MJ at a very low cost.

Hell I'll throw up side bets that the price of weed will go down (maybe not immediately i can see people be like LOL HOLY SHIT LEGAL and mass buy the products that aren't as readily available from legal streams) If weed is ever legalized. Although the bet would prob be pretty worthless as this won't happen for a long long time.

Just think of your standard capitalism market. If big tobacco can sell at 50% of what it's worth and still pull a huge profit (which they def will) then the price will start dropping severely as other competitors will have to compete with those prices and so and so forth. As the cost of growing starts going down as infrastructure is set up so will the prices drastically. Seems like a pretty basic economic question to me.

Note in countries where tobacco isn't taxed as heavily it's like 1-3 dollars for your standard pack of cigs. Even in a country like South Korea the cigs there go for about 1500-3000 won which is about ~1-3 USD. Which is less than half of what it's going for here in the states.

On April 16 2011 13:28 YoMeR wrote: 40 for an 1/8th of an ounce is the standard rate or about 3.6 or so grams. You guys do realise that tobacco is like a few buck an OUNCE. and we pay HEAVY taxes on cigs. (well over 50% of what we pay is tax i believe) but if someone refutes that I'll go look it up. It's hard to imagine how taxes and regulation will cause the price of weed to go up even more than it is now currently. It's ridiculously cheap and easy to produce weed. And big corporations can easily build the right infrastructure to produce decent to high quality MJ at a very low cost.

Yes they can, doesn't mean they will.

Just think of your standard capitalism market. If big tobacco can sell at 50% of what it's worth and still pull a huge profit (which they def will) then the price will start dropping severely as other competitors will have to compete with those prices and so and so forth. As the cost of growing starts going down as infrastructure is set up so will the prices drastically. Seems like a pretty basic economic question to me.

I gave you a historically accurate assessment . . . the user price of weed has risen 33% in 25 years while the user price of cigarettes has gone up 500%

I have no doubt that the cost to produce cigarettes has actually declined, but taxes and regulation have inflated the price.

It is simply naive to think that the same wouldn't happen if weed was legalized.

I haven't once said in this entire thread that your views of how great legalization would be are not possible. What I have done is laid out a far more likely scenario, based on experience.

I know what a bag of weed cost in 1985, and I know what cigs cost in 1985, and I know what they cost now. And not from a book or from some web page.

BTW, I couldn't refute that prohibition made alcohol prices go up, so I stand corrected on that point. However, that does not necessarily mean legalization would bring prices down.

I really don't care if pot is illegal, I have and will smoke it anyway. I have for a long time, and I grew it for a few years as well, never facing any hassle with the law. The risk/reward ratio is +EV in my view. I don't do any other drugs (anymore) so I don't care about those either. I do believe we should have freedom of choice, but I don't have the energy to fight this battle (cuz I'm stoned).

My view is pessimistic, yes. But it's only because I've been around. Anyway, I have shared my views and my experience with you all, take from it what you will.

Peace

Even if prices go up, its the morally correct choice.

On April 16 2011 17:30 Baal wrote: Even if prices go up, its the morally correct choice.

You know, I don't disagree with you. I believe we should be free to do what we want as long as we aren't hurting anyone. We shouldn't punish people for doing drugs, or for selling drugs even, to those that wish to purchase them. It shouldn't be criminal.

My whole point is that "legalization" won't eliminate the rules, it will merely change them. It will be yet another instance where the power shifts to the corporation, the government meddles in our personal lives. And we won't be happy with the new rules either.

I guess it boils down not only to actual "legalization", but the form that legalization takes. So if you are going to advocate the legalization of drugs, you better have a clear design in mind of just what legalization entails.

On April 16 2011 20:53 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + On April 16 2011 17:30 Baal wrote: Even if prices go up, its the morally correct choice. You know, I don't disagree with you. I believe we should be free to do what we want as long as we aren't hurting anyone. We shouldn't punish people for doing drugs, or for selling drugs even, to those that wish to purchase them. It shouldn't be criminal. My whole point is that "legalization" won't eliminate the rules, it will merely change them. It will be yet another instance where the power shifts to the corporation, the government meddles in our personal lives. And we won't be happy with the new rules either. I guess it boils down not only to actual "legalization", but the form that legalization takes. So if you are going to advocate the legalization of drugs, you better have a clear design in mind of just what legalization entails.

Agreed, government fucks upanything it touches (thats why it shouldnt exist)

Even then all drugs should be legal for moral reasons, the practicality of how it works out is secondary to our right to be free.

by government do you mean government or the state?

On April 17 2011 02:54 sawseech wrote: by government do you mean government or the state?

the state, any form of government is doomed to fuck up, but this is not the subject here.

On April 16 2011 15:22 curtinsea wrote: I gave you a historically accurate assessment . . . the user price of weed has risen 33% in 25 years while the user price of cigarettes has gone up 500% I have no doubt that the cost to produce cigarettes has actually declined, but taxes and regulation have inflated the price. It is simply naive to think that the same wouldn't happen if weed was legalized. I haven't once said in this entire thread that your views of how great legalization would be are not possible. What I have done is laid out a far more likely scenario, based on experience. I know what a bag of weed cost in 1985, and I know what cigs cost in 1985, and I know what they cost now. And not from a book or from some web page. BTW, I couldn't refute that prohibition made alcohol prices go up, so I stand corrected on that point. However, that does not necessarily mean legalization would bring prices down. I really don't care if pot is illegal, I have and will smoke it anyway. I have for a long time, and I grew it for a few years as well, never facing any hassle with the law. The risk/reward ratio is +EV in my view. I don't do any other drugs (anymore) so I don't care about those either. I do believe we should have freedom of choice, but I don't have the energy to fight this battle (cuz I'm stoned). My view is pessimistic, yes. But it's only because I've been around. Anyway, I have shared my views and my experience with you all, take from it what you will. Peace

Just pointing out that you didn't actually adjust for inflation on the cigs and weed. Also when economists do those calculations they use ceteris paribus or all other things being held constant assumption. By competition changing, taxes changing and many other variables changing it is hard to actually make an accurate calculation or model like the one you did. Also you are using localised data, I know you aren't claiming anything other than that but your price at the time might of been inflated or deflated compared to the rest of the country due to employment, income etc. If weed is legalised I guess it depends initially on how the suppliers and consumers react. If demand stays the same but there is an influx of supply the price will be driven down. If however there is an influx of new people wanting to try weed etc because it's legal then demand quantity will increase and hence price will. I think it's kind of hard to predict as there are a few unknowns, either way market equilibrium will be reached at some point.

On April 17 2011 15:16 Funktion wrote: Just pointing out that you didn't actually adjust for inflation on the cigs and weed. Also when economists do those calculations they use ceteris paribus or all other things being held constant assumption. By competition changing, taxes changing and many other variables changing it is hard to actually make an accurate calculation or model like the one you did. Also you are using localised data, I know you aren't claiming anything other than that but your price at the time might of been inflated or deflated compared to the rest of the country due to employment, income etc. If weed is legalised I guess it depends initially on how the suppliers and consumers react. If demand stays the same but there is an influx of supply the price will be driven down. If however there is an influx of new people wanting to try weed etc because it's legal then demand quantity will increase and hence price will. I think it's kind of hard to predict as there are a few unknowns, either way market equilibrium will be reached at some point.

I didn't adjust for inflation?? Does inflation affect one product more or less than another, or inflation a general term. I gave a comparison of the price of the two items then and now. I think it speaks for itself.

Also, all the other things you mentioned miss the point . . . . I have no doubt that production costs and wholesale prices will go down, but at the user end we will pay more. Taxes will more than offset any savings, which I think is clearly demonstrated by the skyrocketing price of cigarettes.

The fact is that an 1/8th of weed is the same $40 it has been for nearly 20 years. No other product I know of can make that same claim.

Risk, as in the illegality of it, does not seem to be a factor in pricing.

So the point is your prices...won't bother.