Just remember: the "wild sums of money" will go to RJ Reynolds and Pfizer - the companies who have the industrial capacity and legal channels to establish legal trade. Companies who already make money the likes of which drug lords fantasize. Legally.

Oh, man, Big Pharma! What's a (totally innocent, completely law-abiding-except-for-subsidizing-murdering-gangs-which-is-OK-because-they're-not-white) concerned, but happy-go-lucky drug addict to do?

(That oughta get 'em going!)

Oh, by the way - if you talk about statins, there's a term for the risk vs. benefits to the user.

Why haven't I seen this for any recreational drugs? I've asked.

Clinton is confusing limited decriminalization with legalization. Of course, if you only take away penalties for possession of small amounts but don't allow the industry in general to operate on a legal basis, you only make things worse. But that's not what the reporter asked. Put the entire thing on the same basis as alcohol - regulated but legal to produce and sell - and the whole problem goes away tomorrow.

A fun story about the stupidity of limited decriminalization - one state in Australia (South Australia, neighbour to Victoria where I live) decided to allow legal growing of pot at home. From memory the limit was 3 plants, more than that and you were considered a producer/dealer.

The predictable unintended consequence happened - drug gangs paid groups of people to grow their legal 3 plants each, then collected them up and trucked them to Victoria for sale. Yep, that worked.

What, a politician doesn’t understand economics, color me shocked.

The war on drugs has been a complete failure socially and economically. We are at 1 trillion and counting since it’s inception in 1970. Some facts (you know those little things that politicians hate):

(source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37134751/ns/us_news-security/)

$20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it.

$33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.

$49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.

$121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.

$450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

This is just at the federal level. How much more have we spent in money and lives at the state and local levels. I never quite understood how some substances that have near zero benefits to human consumption (alcohol, tobacco etc…) are justifiable while others are not. If people choose to get high there is scant little that any law will do to deter it. Legalization would also make recreational drugs safer and taxable. Limiting government expenditures while increasing tax revenues…..

"we can't legalize drugs because...because there's too much money to be made from selling them!"

Tell that to California! People down there who get their "license" to sell are making money hand over fist off of the (largely) fake medical marijuana prescriptions. Take away the "risk premium" and there is still a ton of money to be made.

The reason: there is a demand for it.

-Jut

Just remember: the "wild sums of money" will go to RJ Reynolds and Pfizer - the companies who have the industrial capacity and legal channels to establish legal trade.

That would be simply awful. Instead of drug lords and the murderous gangs they sponsor making huge sums of money, it would be legitimate companies that are generally run responsibly making money. The horror.

legitimate companies that have been sued and abused and pilloried for selling legal products like cigarettes and aspirin.

No company in their right mind is going to touch marijuana, cocaine, MDMA, etc. The liability exposure alone is incredible. I don't care how much money you can make from it - now that the precedent's been set, any company that willingly sells products that are addictive are going to be fucked up the ass.

Oh, and the street crime won't go away either. The users still need to come up with the cash to buy it, and if they can't, then every place that sells it is a target. Be real nice to hear about the shootout at the local CVS.

...it would be legitimate companies that are generally run responsibly making money. The horror.

And paying taxes! Ye gods!

...unless you think your street corner independent pharmaceutical representative has been paying taxes on the money he earns.

Brian,

If what are now expensive, illegal drugs become relatively inexpensive, legal drugs, crime would not necessarily rise. I don't read too much about armed robbery over a case of beer.

Look at the bright side. New York is spared Hillary's brilliance.

"That would be simply awful. Instead of drug lords and the murderous gangs they sponsor making huge sums of money, it would be legitimate companies that are generally run responsibly making money. The horror."

Christopher, in my more cynical moments I tell people that legalization will solve our country's drug problems overnight -- because as soon as RJR and Smith-Kline-Beecham get involved, the hipsters will immediately declare them unfashionable.

Mark -

How are they going to become less expensive? The sourcing is still run my crime syndicates in Colombia and Mexico. The regulation and security needed for distribution and sale are not going to be cheap.

And liquor stores are being robbed all the time - not for booze, but for money. Let's make pharmacies an even more attractive target!

The reason drug compaines get sued is not because their products killed people, it is because they hid the fact that it could kill people and the people who took the drug couldnt give informed consent.

Cigerette companies were sued over the fact that they knew thir products were causing cancer and birth defects and failed to addequettly inform their consumers.

Anyone who stared smokeing after 1985 is going to find it impossble to get anything more then a nuscinace setlement out of tobaccco companies.

If dug were leagalized and the FDA set out guidlines for end product quality control and purity he only cause of action an individual would have to sue under would be for failure of quality control as we all already know the risks of drug use.

Personally I ow can understand how easily someone can get hooked on opiates. I dont think you have any idea how good it feels for someones whos brian is always running at top sped in 12 different directions to suddenly be completly unable to think. The sensation of your brain turning to sludge can be such a relief.

That was something I never understood until I had a morphine drip. I can only imagine how good that feels to someone who is seriously messed up

Oh, and the street crime won't go away either. The users still need to come up with the cash to buy it, and if they can't, then every place that sells it is a target.

Addicts thieving and robbing are a problem, but they're not the source of major crimes that the drug gangs are.

Christopher, in my more cynical moments I tell people that legalization will solve our country's drug problems overnight -- because as soon as RJR and Smith-Kline-Beecham get involved, the hipsters will immediately declare them unfashionable.

That would be a big step toward taking away the illicit thrills.

How are they going to become less expensive? The sourcing is still run my crime syndicates in Colombia and Mexico. The regulation and security needed for distribution and sale are not going to be cheap

I think the studies of this issue show that prices go down, but not radically so when drugs are legalized. Pot is cheaper at dispensaries here in California than on the street.

I can't imagine a legitimate pharmaceutical company purchasing from the narcoterrorists of Columbia. The supply chain would get cleaned up, which would go a long way toward removing a major funding source of problems in the countries south of us.

Anyone who stared smokeing after 1985 is going to find it impossble to get anything more then a nuscinace setlement out of tobaccco companies.

Anyone who kept smoking after 1985 shouldn't get anything either.

...how good it feels for someones whos brian is always running at top sped in 12 different directions to suddenly be completly unable to think.

Great. Now I have this image of the brian who posts here running at top speed in 12 different directions and looj giving him opiates to render him catatonic.

The sourcing is still run my crime syndicates in Colombia and Mexico. The regulation and security needed for distribution and sale are not going to be cheap.

For one thing, the finished product won't have to be snuck into the country in small batches in someone's small intestine. The finished product or even the raw materials can be openly imported in bulk.

Legitimate companies will not be buying from crime syndicates in Colombia and Mexico.

Legal regulation and security are a lot cheaper than drug smuggling submarines or teenage hookers with a plane ticket and a stomach full of condoms stuffed with cocaine.

You don't here much about illegal distilleries anymore. They exist, but they are not the main source of spirits.

And liquor stores are being robbed all the time - not for booze, but for money. Let's make pharmacies an even more attractive target!

Correlation does not imply causation. If you are a robber are you going to walk into a pharmacy, major grocery store, bank or any place with 10-50 people, that may or not be armed, has dozens of cameras and maybe panic alarms, and try to rob them? Or are you going to pick a a liquor or convenience store with maybe 1-2 clerks and 1 customer. And which are easier to spot?

Does anyone else believe that the quote from Secretary Clinton seems to be taken out of context? I'm just going from the Reason video as I haven't heard anything about this quote from any other source.

It just doesn't ring true to me and I'd like to hear or read the actual source.

Thank you very much for that link, Amy. I appreciate your intellectual honesty and, though I hate to do it, I'm still going to disagree with the ReasonTV thing. They didn't have nearly as much intellectual honesty as you.

For those that don't follow the link to get the full context, here is the appropriate passage from the interview:

QUESTION: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don't think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don't think that – you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped. They can’t be given an even easier road to take, because they will then find it in their interest to addict even more young people. Mexico didn’t have much of a drug problem before the last 10 years, and you want to keep it that way. So you don’t want to give any excuse to the drug traffickers to be able legally to addict young people.

As Reason points out, there is a serious problem with her logic here. Ltw hit the nail on the head when Ltw said, "Clinton is confusing limited decriminalization with legalization."

However, I don't think confusion on her part would describe what is happening here. Secretary Clinton is talking about the sort of limited decriminalization that is happening now throughout the U.S. through many different state referendums. She hasn't been asked about, and isn't addressing the idea of a government regulated, domestic source of industry produced recreational drugs.

By the way, does anyone here think that such a U.S. government regulated and taxed drug farm program is politically possible anytime soon?

She's speaking to a Mexican audience that is very concerned about serious, serious violence within their country. More people have been dying there each day than in Afghanistan. How soon would we be able to legalize and set up these "grown in the U.S.A. drug operations"?

Although I'll concede the larger point of the ReasonTV thing, Ms. Alkon, and my fellow posters that the ideal would be legalized, regulated, and taxed recreational drugs in the U.S., I submit that the attempt to make Secretary Clinton look like a buffoon and an idiot in this case is disingenuous at best.

"Cigerette companies were sued over the fact that they knew thir products were causing cancer and birth defects and failed to addequettly inform their consumers."

One more time: if you talk about statins, which are apparently horribly over-prescribed, there's a term for the risk vs. benefits to the user.

Why haven't I seen this for any recreational drugs?

If you want this commercially produced, you have to make that evaluation. Not doing it is just another sign of "shut up, I just want drugs" apathy.

Why haven't I seen this for any recreational drugs?

If you want this commercially produced, you have to make that evaluation. Not doing it is just another sign of "shut up, I just want drugs" apathy.

This seems rather specious to me.

You haven't seen this for any recreational drugs because they're not legally produced (with exceptions for marijuana in a few states); black marketeers aren't know for adding warning labels to their products.

Certainly it would be trivial for a legitimate producer to slap a warning similar to that on alcohol or cigarettes with known risks for a given drug.

Done and done.

It's time we reconsider the prohibition of alcohol, guys. Contrary to what Hillary says, we should make alcohol illegal again, and decriminalize/legalize the other nasties. Think about it. Think about the death and misery associated with legal alcohol: 85,000 deaths/year in the U.S. alone, and a prodigious sum of tax dollars to remedy the arrested development of the addicted.

It's not coincidental that Egypt was the birthplace of beer and that they also continue to suffer tyranny. Alcohol is tyranny. It is not freedom.

On the other hand, Sierra Nevada Brewing Company is joining forces with the local Trappist Monastery and are creating America's first Belgian Trappist-style beers! Look for them in a store near you, this spring! :(

Why haven't I seen this for any recreational drugs?

Like Christopher said, the drugs aren't legal. How can you hold an illegal substance to the same standards of a legal, commercially produced substance?

Think about it. Think about the death and misery associated with legal alcohol: 85,000 deaths/year in the U.S. alone, and a prodigious sum of tax dollars to remedy the arrested development of the addicted.

Doctors kill way more than that every year. Let's ban doctors!

I know you're going for argumentum ad absurdum, but it doesn't fit here.

I'd like to see a comparison of the number of people who consume alcohol and are functional members of society versus the number who are worthless dregs. I'd like to see the same comparison for various illegal substances.

I'd bet that the ratio approaches 1 for things like cocaine, crack, heroin and meth. I'd also bet it's nowhere near even 0.1 for alcohol.

The odds of being a heroin user and being a functional and productive human being are as close to zero as makes no difference.

One more time: if you talk about statins, which are apparently horribly over-prescribed, there's a term for the risk vs. benefits to the user.

Why haven't I seen this for any recreational drugs? -Radwaste

If the drugs are to be used recreationally then why would you even need a risk/benifit analysis?

In fact I would say such an analysis would be impossible as the risks would depend on dose size, a factor beyond the control of the anyalist, and the benifits whould be wholly subjective to every individual.

I'd like to see a comparison of the number of people who consume alcohol and are functional members of society versus the number who are worthless dregs. I'd like to see the same comparison for various illegal substances.

I'd bet that the ratio approaches 1 for things like cocaine, crack, heroin and meth. I'd also bet it's nowhere near even 0.1 for alcohol. -brian

Probably true, but I'd be willing to bet that most meth and heroin addicts werent all that functional before they started doing hard drus either

Oh, bah, humbug..

Do you really think nobody has ever studied the effect of THC or cocaine on the body?

Come on!

The only reason recreational drugs don't have a cost/benefit study published is that it's negative.

How can you tell?

Even the most vociferous advocates of legal marijuana have to use pre-existing and acute medical conditions in their arguments for legality!

(Cancer, intractable pain, glaucoma, etc.)

By the way, does anyone here think that such a U.S. government regulated and taxed drug farm program is politically possible anytime soon?

No, not really. But Prohibition did get repealed, so it can happen. For a really good fictional exploration of these issues, I would strongly recommend reading Ben Elton's High Society, which centres around a British MP introducing a bill to legalise all drugs in the UK. Very funny in a dark way and serious at the same time. It's hard to read it and not come out in favour of legalisation.

Doctors kill way more than that every year. Let's ban doctors!

Good point. Let's ban alcohol-drinking doctors --and make an addition to the Hippocratic Oath that forbids doctors' imbibing of deadly drugs, just as they are forbidden to administer deadly drugs to patients. I'd like to know how many of these deaths were the result of negligent alcoholic doctors?

I'd be willing to bet that most meth and heroin addicts werent all that functional before they started doing hard drus either

How much are you willing to lose on that bet?

The only reason recreational drugs don't have a cost/benefit study published is that it's negative.

I've read your posts here; you're far too smart and well-informed to be serious about this line of argument.

The calculus with drugs is essentially the same as whiskey: "If I snort this line (take this shot), I'll feel good right now, but I'm likely to have a hangover tomorrow. If I do this too much, I risk a debilitating addiction." Yet you are not asking booze to justify itself in the same way.

That "feeling buzzed" thing doesnt fall into the same quantifiable cost-benefit analysis as your example of statins and other non-recreational drugs. Drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and sugar all probably do more harm than good in a cost/benefit analysis; the useful question is what causes the least overall harm to people and their freedoms.

She hasn't been asked about, and isn't addressing the idea of a government regulated, domestic source of industry produced recreational drugs.

whistleDick, leave out the domestic source part and that is precisely what she was asked.

not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption

Legalisation of trafficking (i.e. importing and selling), not just possession of small amounts for personal use. By definition that includes regulation - even if specific regulations weren't developed, every retailer is covered by various fair trade and consumer protection rules. In theory, those alone would be enough to ensure quality control and proper weights and measures, dosages, etc. Practice is different of course.

Of course, if that happened a domestic industry would be sure to develop, and like sugar, start complaining about cheap imports threatening their industry (because like sugar, the climate is more suited to higher yields near the equator for a lot of drugs, plus lower labour costs). So you would have tariffs, quotas, price supports, etc. Maybe she's right and the price wouldn't fall all that far after all :)

There's money in them there drugs, on both the legal and illegal side of the equation. The incarceration industry is absolutely a growth industry, and , think of the money in property confiscation. It pays to keep the status quo!

Christopher, you're using a straw man, and citing something I fight at every turn.

Proponents of legalizing {insert drug of choice here} frequently use alcohol as their example.

Funny - they shut up when the death count is mentioned.

Everything has a cost/benefit ratio. The solution here is NOT to duck that, claim things relate to other activities OR to try "two wrongs" again, using the misbehavior of police and the courts as some sort of excuse.

The solution is to lay everything out on the table. To be honest.

Since you mentioned alcohol, here's the truth: public demand for the drug, alcohol, led to widespread lawbreaking after the problem was thought to be serious enough to amend the US Constitution. When that amended was repealed - yielding to those who said, basically, "screw the law, I'm going to get drunk", criminal gangs were so entrenched that their influence in politics is felt today. Federal agents fought bootleggers (that scene will be repeated) and mobsters who wouldn't go away merely because booze was now legal. Ordinary people entering the business were now subject to a sea of regulations enforced by the BATF, now BATFE. These even extend to the design of product labeling.
Over time, it was found that alcohol was a huge factor in all sorts of accidents, motor vehicle and otherwise. Fortunately for industries engaged in dangerous activities, alcohol concentration is easily measured, and employee abstinence can be made a condition of employment.

One of the significant obstacles to legalizing {substance of choice} is how to establish that your workforce is not under the influence. Employers have a Federally mandated obligation in their hiring practices to provide full and reliable documentation.

Got a suggestion as to how to do that? I haven't seen it here.

One of the significant obstacles to legalizing {substance of choice} is how to establish that your workforce is not under the influence.

Admittedly Radwaste, this is one of the biggest problems with legalisation. The tests involved generally don't measure instantaneous influence the way BAC does, only that you've used recently. Fair point.