Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead. Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after. Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it’s permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question. The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons.
Prohibition of drugs corrupts politicians and law enforcement by putting police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in the position to threaten the profits of an illicit trade. This is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for prohibited industries but rare otherwise. Mexico’s recent history illustrates this dramatically. Prohibition is a drain on the public purse. Federal, state and local governments spend roughly $44 billion per year to enforce drug prohibition. These same governments forgo roughly $33 billion per year in tax revenue they could collect from legalized drugs, assuming these were taxed at rates similar to those on alcohol and tobacco. Under prohibition, these revenues accrue to traffickers as increased profits. The right policy, therefore, is to legalize drugs while using regulation and taxation to dampen irresponsible behavior related to drug use, such as driving under the influence. This makes more sense than prohibition because it avoids creation of a black market. This approach also allows those who believe they benefit from drug use to do so, as long as they do not harm others.
Despite this compelling argument from an economic point of view, most Americans feel strongly against legalizing marijuana even if it could be taxed, as well as lowering the drinking age.
MARIJUANA SHOULD BE…
Legal 31%
Legal, if taxed & money used for projects 7%
Illegal, even if it could be taxed 58%
SHOULD DRINKING AGE BE LOWERED TO 18, IF THAT WOULD FREE UP POLICE TO DEAL WITH OTHER CRIMES?
Yes, lowered 24%
No, kept same 73%
Of all age groups, the strongest support for lowering the drinking age comes from those under age 30, but even most of them (six in ten) are still opposed. Of all other age groups, eight in ten are opposed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This country lives in fear. From a psychological prospective legalizing Marijuana and lowering the drinking age makes more sense, because, when its legalized it is no longer forbidden so the hype and temptation is killed.If this occurred at first there would be a mass crazy and then it would level out and not have shocking statistics at all. All over Europe the drinking age is 18 ( and other countries besides the US) and their alcoholism rate is ten times lower than ours. Well, if you exclude England and Ireland but, generally it is fairly low.Any type of restriction always creates violence and outbreak from somewhere so that is inevitable. However, our police force should be more focused on serial killers then pot smokers.
ReplyDelete-Alix
People in this world treat Marijuana as if it's already legal. If it was to be legal, I think the world would be a messed up place.. More than what it is now because you won't be in the correct state of mind. Drug dealers aren't scared of getting caught anymore, because they can do it so discretely. It makes me a little mad. As for the drinking age, if it were to be changed, younger children would still be doing it behind the law's back. The more freedom you give, it the more crimes you get.
ReplyDeleteLook this is a never ending topic. During the Reagen administration, when we started the "WAR ON DRUGS" thing we started the whole "just say no", and offcourse we created the DEA. Now the crack epedemic was serious back then, but when you look at the situation now its different. Crack isnt king anymore theres less crack heads in the street than they ever was. The problem with a war on drugs is, that it will always find away to get back in the streets no matter what. Look at the mexican mafia?...where did they come from. well three years ago when the war on drugs captured key drug lords in colombia, the colombians stopped selling to the states instead they sold to mexico. mexico drug smuggler get them across the border and make the killing, so now no more colombian cartels its strictly mexicos turf now. You see how its a domino effect?..someone will always pick it up, becaues when its illegal your an independent worker and you dictate your prices. Now weed...thats been here since the forties, indian gurus where using that stuff 1500 years ago, its been in america since the early 1900's. lets be realistic, its not going away its become part of pop culture, now you can choose to be yourself and say no, thats good your being a good citizen. but again its not going away.Now if you did legalize it, alot of gang violence, and drug wars would stop. The problem with weed is that its already being used in various medical feilds i.e glaucoma(hope i spelled that rite) and etc...i read that in a rastafari magazine. Alcohol...i mean its more dangerous or as dangerous as weed, it impairs your mind and is the number two killer in america behind cigarettes. The u.s drinking age used to be 18 for a couple of years in the 80's but the amount of teen fatalities forced the government toraise it back up again, self explanatory. thats it.
ReplyDeleteTresor