“the reason drugs are so harmful, is precisely because they are illegal”

Certainly the illegality of drugs creates a lot of problems. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say the illegality is the only reason drugs are harmful. Certain drugs are highly addictive and can kill you if you take just a little too much. That’s harmful whether they’re illegal or not. And driving under the influence of most drugs is potentially harmful as well. You can’t take the harmfullness out of a substance my legalizing it. You can only regulate its use by legalizing it.

“anyone with a recipe and a chemistry set can make their own synthetics, and organics such as opium, marijuana and coca are hardy and easy to grow”

I doubt it would be quite that simple. If drugs were legalized, then there would definitely be regulation. So everyone couldn’t just make their own and sell it.

I’m working on the second part of the model, which deals with enforcement. So far I’ve only considered the aspect of crime. Of course, I realise that the model is incomplete if I do not deal with the issues of addiction and rehabilitation.

Thanks for your comments though. I appreciate it. Discussion and debate helps to reveal the truth.

But I will have to remind you that legalising drugs will also have negative social consequences. I’ve not consumed any before, but as far as I know, such drugs are very different from smoking. When smoking ciggies, you just return to normal after that. Other more potent ones will probably cause irrational behavior or causing users to zone out for hours or days. If taken in public, they are an eyesore and a nuisence. If taken in private, they are a domestic accident waiting to happen, especially if they have kids at home.

How do we resolve this then? Take a utilitarian approach and see if there is any positive utility overall? Do we measure utility in dollars?

The objective of this model is not to deprive suppliers of profits. In fact, if the suppliers make profits from volume rather than higher price per unit, then its even better.

Keep in mind, my hypothesis is that all crimes associated with drugs are a direct result of the high price of drugs. If drugs cost as much as a pack of cigarettes, there wouldn’t be any incentive to rob or steal to get money to buy drugs, no?

Thus, if suppliers find that they can make more money by increasing supply and reducing price rather than restricting supply and jacking up prices, then the objective of reducing the incentives for crime is achieved,

You argue about supply and demand. Drug raids - Supply drops - prices inflate. However, since supply has already dropped, that does mean that the drug producers are selling less, albeit for more. Do they make more profit this way? That depends on the elasticity of demand, no? Maybe the demand curve is such that the drug producers actually make more profit from selling more for less? What you are assuming is that demand is very unelastic, which really is a very big assumption. That is not to say that your assumption is wrong, but I reckon that it will be very difficult to prove that it is right too.

No where in that quote you picked out did I assume that they have similar addictive properties. You failed to see my point, which is crime occurs because of the high price of narcotics. If the price were low, the incentive to commit crime would not exist.

“Now, ask yourself. Is there really a dosage of heroin which a doctor would prescribe for someone perfectly healthy to feel \?high\? and at the same time avoid addiction? Please don\?t go down the \?sick man in pain\? route. It\?s a one off dose. if not, it\?s given to cancer patients (to my knowledge and 1st hand exp) who were going to die anyway.”

I fail to see how is this relevant to the discussion. Do people only smoke if doctors prescribe igarettes? Or eat food because chefs tell you to eat? This is an issue in which people have to decide for themselves, not base their decisions on the authority of others.

“I think they have. It\?s the multibillion industry called tobacco. Unfortunately, they\?re not the same. Ask the folks who just got sued for over-prescribing sleeping pills.”

Firstly, you don’t explain what you mean by “not the same”. Secondly, “over-prescribing” is somewhat vague isn’t it? Who decides how much is too much? When is the “over-prescribing” limit breached? Lastly, how is this linked to the argument for legalisation of drugs?

“I\?d argue more, but I think you should relook your argument yourself instead. Gosh I hope you\?re not really studying to be a lawyer. You sound like Lawyer Hutz from the simpsons. And in capital letters at that. GOSH”

I believe that if you had any semblance of an understanding in economics, you would’ve seen the merit of my arguments immediately. Instead you choose emotion over reason, knee-jerk reaction over logical analysis and personal attacks over civil discourse. If you had provided substantive arguments, I would have taken you seriously. Not only do you not make concrete and logical arguments, you choose to engage in ad hominem attacks. What is the point of making a comment then?

“Ask yourself with a clear conscience, how would anyone have the incentive to rob, steal or murder if any narcotic that they wish to purchase costs as little as a pack of cigarettes or a cup of coffee? (Both of which, are legal stimulants, but not unlike the narcotics.)”

I can clearly answer yes (you’re asking in the wrong manner, it should be a yes no question) to that question. I mean, like, duh? It’s like comparing pen knifes to assault rifles.
Just so that you know, nicotine and opium addiction may draw the same breathe along a sentence, but to assume that they have the same addictive properties? gosh

Now, ask yourself. Is there really a dosage of heroin which a doctor would prescribe for someone perfectly healthy to feel “high” and at the same time avoid addiction? Please don’t go down the “sick man in pain” route. It’s a one off dose. if not, it’s given to cancer patients (to my knowledge and 1st hand exp) who were going to die anyway.

“to maximize profits, would you sell someone a product that would kill them quickly? Or would you sell them a product that would keep them coming back for more, but does not kill them?”
“There is an incentive to make a product that makes people come back for more, and more importantly keep them alive, simply because dead people don?t make good customers.”
“Were the drug industry to be legalised, would it not be in the long-term financial interests of drug manufacturers to create drugs which do not kill their customers?”

I think they have. It’s the multibillion industry called tobacco. Unfortunately, they’re not the same. Ask the folks who just got sued for over-prescribing sleeping pills.
I’d argue more, but I think you should relook your argument yourself instead.

Gosh I hope you’re not really studying to be a lawyer. You sound like Lawyer Hutz from the simpsons. And in capital letters at that. GOSH