It’s not an argument for drug prohibition; it’s a demonstration and consequence of the failure of drug prohibition.
6 thoughts on “Meth”
Comments are closed.
It’s not an argument for drug prohibition; it’s a demonstration and consequence of the failure of drug prohibition.
Comments are closed.
Let me break this down for Balko. He can’t make the economic argument because it contradicts his premise. He is right that a legal market for meth will mean less intradrug dealer crime but the crime that has the larger impact on society is what addicts do to support their habit.
In Washington we legalized weed. The black market stayed in place until prices reached parity and dropped below the black market price. Supply/demand took over and even though highly restricted, the supply is great enough to reduce price even as demand increased.
In order to defeat the black market for meth, prices must drop below what the black market offers. This means cheaper and more accessible meth. I don’t know if this will lead to more meth users but it wont magically lead to less on its own.
Maybe you are thinking higher taxes on legal meth will prevent people from using the drug but then you have the black market making a comeback.
Legal meth could lead to less crime because addicts would have to engage in less crime to pay for their habit. But that isn’t the argument Balko makes and the crime wouldn’t totally go away. It could also be that the increased availability will lead to more meth use from existing meth users, meaning they will buy more meth and continue current levels of crime to support it.
We may see less people in jail for possessing meth but not necessarily for the crimes addicts engage in to support their habit. Balko seems to advocate making those crimes non-crimes and rather than being punished, they only go to rehab.
Balko is also arguing that legalizing meth will lead to less meth use. How this happens, we never learn. Maybe the magic of a big government libertarian treatment program? We already spend money on treatment, contrary to what Balko reports.
Meth isn’t like other drugs. Comparing it to alcohol or weed is like comparing a Falcon 9 to something made by Estes. People like Balko don’t have any understanding of what it does to addicts. It removes your ability to control your own actions.
” the suggestion that we end this madness and let adults make their own decisions ”
Meth addicts don’t make their own decisions.
Also, the idea that people turn to meth because they have to drive to the next county to buy booze is retarded. How many of those meth users do both drugs?
And the Fox Butterfield effect about controlling meth making supplies not working because most meth comes from Mexico and isn’t being made in the USA anymore was funny.
Comparing it to alcohol or weed is like comparing a Falcon 9 to something made by Estes. It removes your ability to control your own actions.
You don’t think alcohol removes a person’s ability to control his actions? Ask anyone who’s worked Friday/Saturday night shifts as an ambulance attendant. Or any bartender.
Yes, people may still commit crimes to buy legal drugs. People still commit crimes to buy alcohol today. But the scale of crime is drastically smaller than it was during prohibition. Not being able to completely eliminate crime does not mean it can’t be reduced. Likewise, the market for moonshine and rotgut whiskey — the alcoholic equivalent of crystal meth — is much smaller than it was during Prohibition.
“You don’t think alcohol removes a person’s ability to control his actions?”
Good point but portions of one night aren’t nearly the same as the period of time for meth addiction. Not everyone can be an alcoholic, everyone can get addicted to meth.
“But the scale of crime is drastically smaller than it was during prohibition.”
You don’t have to commit crimes to function using alcohol. Meth addicts, not so much. And the focus on crime during prohibition was between gangsters rather than what alcoholics did to support their habits.
People aren’t saying how legalization will specifically lead to less crime, aside from drug dealers, which I agree with. How will legalization reduce crime that addicts engage in? Like I said in my original post, maybe if meth was cheap enough but low cost and high supply might not fix that problem and could cause others.
You make some good points but meth is different. We can agree to disagree on whether or not legal meth is a net benefit for society.
Maybe we should stop letting people use their intoxication as an excuse for crime, as if they weren’t the ones who intoxicated themselves in the first place. Get behind the wheel while drunk and kill someone? Go to prison for manslaughter. Rob a convenience store to feed your meth habit? go to prison. And so forth. Three strikes? You’re out.
It would almost be as if there were a reason for all those other laws on the books.
A slight tangent to what you wrote Wodun, but I quickly ran through a similar economic process earlier today. I was discussing Healthcare with a few friends. I had a thought, what if drugs, such as Dilaudid were available OTC rather than prescription. Today, many ERs are filled with drug seekers. People in the industry make a point about this using Rand’s talking bears.
So if the drugs were OTC, couldn’t the drug seekers just get them from the local CVS (not burning in Baltimore)? Then I realized why this wouldn’t work. Most of these people in the ER are not just drug seekers, they can’t hold down a job either. Even if the drug was OTC, they would come to the ER to try and get the medicine for free. People come to the ER for head colds, because they can’t or won’t pay for OTC medicine, and the hopeful bonus of a doctor’s note to skip work.
That’s not to say I agree with what I consider excessive regulation of drugs. However, the economic argument has flaws.