If you're going to "imagine" a legal drugs industry, shouldn't it be things that aren't true of the illegal one that we have now?
Illegal drugs are universally available. They are well marketed.
However, the local Coors and Bud distributors rarely shoot at one another. And, when their customers go broke, neither one of them kills said customers.
And to those who say "it's different"...yes, it is....I can list any number incidents involving potential serious societal harm, and some involving actual societal harm, that were totally a result of alcohol. And make no mistake, these people also had access to the full range of commonly available drugs as well, and partaked of them often. But in the aggregate, in my experience, it is rarely the drugs that causes the problem, it is almost always the booze. The argument is that all these social incidents come from booze, but it would be worse if drugs were also available.....well drugs ARE available...if you want drugs, it is only a little bit more difficult to buy than booze.
Although, it seems reasonable to me that if "drugs" are legalized, a larger portion of the public will get involved, but I haven't seen anything to make me think this will make society worse. My best guess would be that it might get people off the booze a bit and chill them out, so they don't start so many fights and other wild adventures that boozed up people get involved in.
It happened during Prohibition, so it's unclear why you think that it's inconceivable.
However, I'm compariing between drugs and booze.
I'm pointing out that the "{something bad} will happen" arguments against legalizing drugs almost always use a "{something bad}" that is happens while they're illegal. In other words, legalization doesn't change whether said something occurs, so said something isn't relevant to the legalization or not discussion.
Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware of the rhetorical/polemic structure of this argument, as well as the simple age of it, I'm just chipping in with what I've considered. I myself have a very liberal approach to drugs, my use of certain drugs (which is moderate even for alcohol) and I have a family involved in Iraq/AfPaq, figured this thread was well suited to my two cents. Just thought I had to defend my comments as something more than simply a "ohhh, terrorist'll get ya" pokey stick.
I agree that there's an attempt to suppress. My point is that this attempt hasn't produced a significant shortage or any of the benefits that we'd supposedly get from making drugs unavailable.
It's sort of like running an air conditioner outdoors. One can feel a temperature differential if one stands in exactly the right place but otherwise it's a complete waste of energy.
> If this pressure were to let up, even in only a few of these countries, this would surely cause an economic vacuum that would be for all intents and purposes like a gold rush(?).
Legalization might change the players, but there's no vacuum.
> Just thought I had to defend my comments as something more than simply a "ohhh, terrorist'll get ya" pokey stick.
Huh?
Ha, I think we're broadly in agreemant but I'm tending toward pessimism, the above is a reference to Alex Jones which I guess helps qualify that!! Was just alluding to the fact I wasn't trying to doomsay and polarise the argument but articulate a genuine concern that there exists far to much potential in a free (a.i.s) drugs trade for corruption and misuse of power. It is not a trade I would like to see legal for fear of a smarmy spin covered consumerism. I manage nicely as it is, but decriminalisation I think is a far better option than legalisation. Speaking conservatively and pessimistically.
Argh! I'm NOT comparing them.