The amount the U.S. Govt taxes drugs would most likely be slightly lower than drug cartels, so they can displace existing cartels using our police and military to enforce compliance. (sound familiar ?)

Is it meant to imply that somehow legalization will act as a payoff to the cartels and increase violence?

Cartels reap higher–not lower–profits based on their ability to use violence and political favors to exclude competitors, and their ability to cash in on the willingness of some individuals to risk jail time and/or physical injury.

While the fact that cartels are currently established players in the market may give them an early entrant advantage if the market for drugs was to be decriminalized, they would completely lose the advantage they currently enjoy based on who has the biggest guns, the least fear of dying or the least conscience.

If legalization would precipitate more–not less–violence, than it would follow that Wal-Mart or Safeway should be even more violent than the trade in illegal items. This is obviously not the case.

It is not in the cartels’ financial interest to see drugs legalized. It will break their monopoly. Prices will plummet. They rate of return on drug sale and manufacture will gravitate toward the average rate of return in other occupations. It cannot be construed as a payoff. And even if by expanding market share and providing the product most effectively, existing cartels could reap greater profits, they would begin to behave like normal businesses that can settle disputes in courts of law rather than being forced to settle them in the streets with guns like the wild wild west.

As far as people driving under the influence, this is at least a logically
valid point. However it makes no sense unless one also advocates making alcohol illegal. If the argument applies to prohibition of one mind altering substance based on public safety concerns than it is completely inconsistent to omit alcohol from he equation.

Dr. Ted

Let’s do this. =D

For those who fear the reefer, when ever you want to make a joke about those people who smoke funny ciggs, substitute “who drink that funny grape juice” or “who drink those funny hopps.” They’re all the same… You can get too high on any of them, or just be socially spirited.

Let’s end Prohibition and stop criminalizing the folks who just want to relax, after a hard day’s work, and prefer the herb to the grape or the the barley–and all those calories.

In case you’re open to considering the possibility that there is a better way: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

By the way, us citizen, the massacre in Columbine was committed by young people on legal prescription drugs. I expect we will learn Holmes was on Rx meds too.

The war on drugs in both the US and Mexico kills a hell of a lot more people than overdoses by users. Not that I’m advocating overdoses. You expose kids to dealers who market to them, and recruit them, starting as lookouts and graduating to other dangerous roles. Kids who might stop at trying pot are pushed to try other drugs by their black market dealers.

I’m just saying why do we continue to take a blow torch and an axe to a rat-infestation? Sure you kill some rats, and anyone else in proximity. That’s brilliant. You also destroy a lot of other people and lives and property.

Drugs were legal in the 1800s, and early part of the 1900s. The idea of a war on drugs sure has paid off well for Law enforcement, and the manufacturers of drug testing, prison guards, wire tapping and other ingenious devices that haven’t put a dent in usage of marijuana. Coke use is down and out of favor and the new drugs of choice are meth.