An Essay: Problems in the Drug War

Problems in the Drug War



I’ve been thinking about the Drug War and the negative effect it has had on drug use and drug users. It comes as a result of my decision to buy some Salvia Divinorum, a legal psychedelic, and realized how fortunate it is that it is legal. Rather than having to trust some shady dealer or even an acquaintance, this way, you know what you're getting. You pay for a 10x extract, and that's what you get. A dealer in a black market deal may not know for sure what he’s selling, maybe due to misinformation, true ignorance, or worse, he knows and is ripping you off. But in a legal setting like the Salvia market, the free market system monitors itself, and if a certain place is found to have an inferior product or operate in a shady manner, they get less business.



Now, one could say the black market is the freest of markets; but the problem is that because it is illegal, it is kept in the dark (thus the name). Knowledge of the product you are buying is limited, which in itself can be dangerous. Also, with the fear of the law, the prices go up to account for the risk factor inherent in black market trade. This means there is tremendous profit to be made in the drug trade, so the competition can become deadly; anyone who has studied the mafia or drug cartels can tell you that. This is a direct result of the market condition, not what's being sold. I can provide an example in the product of tobacco.



Tobacco has been shown to be about as addictive as heroin; yet the problems associated with heroin (and other drugs) are not associated with tobacco. This is because of several factors. First, the tobacco user always has a solid steady supply for their habit; there is no threat of one day running out and being unable to get their nicotine fix. This is also true of the tobacco salesman, who has no fear over losing his supply, and of the tobacco grower, who needn’t worry about his crop being seized by government forces. Thus, throughout the entire tobacco spectrum, there is a great reduction of fear. This has implications in the competitive nature that is inherent in any free market system. Since there is plenty of tobacco to be attained, sold, and smoked, as well as the absence of an environment of fear, there is no need for gang warfare over the tobacco trade; indeed, to do that would be counterintuitive, because that would give the legal sector every reason to shut down all parties involved.



Also, and related to the legal market condition, there is no artificially high prices on the product. Since there is no risk in selling, possessing, or using tobacco, there is no need to jack up the prices for the risk on the part of the seller. And since the market inspires competition (but as mentioned, peaceful competition), prices are necessarily lower than if tobacco were illegal, since it is a buyer’s market. In the drug trade, however, there exists a seller’s market; the dealer sets the prices because the illegal nature of the drug makes it harder to buy, and a limited supply in the market lets sellers increase prices. This is simple economics; remember the Tickle Me Elmo doll fiasco when people sold them for hundreds of dollars thanks to the limited supply and high demand? And there is no doubt that there is a high demand for drugs.



Now, since prices are lower in a legal selling environment, the unrestrained greed that prevails in the illegal drug trade has never materialized. To be sure, tobacco companies are trying to maximize profit, but it’s not an unrestrained profit. It seems to me, the tighter and harsher the laws against a drug (or any product), the more the seller’s risk and thus the more he will charge to make it worth his while to take that risk. In this kind of situation, a dealer wants to maximize his buyer base, and in an illegal trade, this might be done through violence towards the competition. Combining fear and greed can easily lead to murder; again, look at the mafia. But in a legal setting, prices aren’t driven up by “risk charges” and antitrust laws ensure no one seller can capture the entire market. Competition is required and enforced by law.



An important nuance in the whole idea of prohibition can become clear here. Since prices are not artificially high, the common tobacco smoker is easily able to maintain their habit. There is no need to rob people or businesses so they can pay for their next fix of extremely expensive tobacco; the legal free market keeps prices down, and, I might add, gives the government a new source of income through the tobacco tax.



Also important is the knowledge aspect of a product. As I mentioned above, in the black market, information about drugs is limited, often severely. The misinformation, confusion, and outright myths just about marijuana, many seen occasionally on this forum, are a constant threat to responsible drug use. Knowledge really is power, and it has been stifled due to the illegal classification of drugs. Not only is general knowledge about the drug limited, but also specific information about the product one buys in a specific drug deal is restricted. How can one be sure a dealer is not ripping you off, selling an inferior product for a too-high price? How can you be sure he even knows exactly what he’s selling? In many cases, there is no surety, surety that can often only come if you know the dealer well and he grows or manufactures the product himself. If you don’t, you have no options; if you get screwed on a deal, you can’t run to the cops, because you’d be in trouble yourself. And so this pervasive ignorance that is present over the entire drug trade spectrum produces a situation ripe for accidents; not only do users not know what they’re getting, they don’t even know how to use it safely. This ignorance is caused by the prohibition and nothing else.



None of this is a problem in the tobacco market. There are numerous studies out there pointing out the dangers of using this product. There is no ambiguity like there is in black market drugs. Buyers both know what they are buying and know the risks they are facing with certainty impossible in the illegal drug world. And the sellers can, and are being, held accountable. This too is not possible in the black market.



Thus, even with a highly addictive substance there is no reason to think that in a legal setting that we would see the many problems we currently face with the illegal classification of drugs. Indeed, the situation would be vastly improved, as both market conditions, and thereby general knowledge levels, are improved. Putting drugs into the realm of the black market has done nothing but spread the exact social ills this prohibition seeked to solve: crime, murder, ignorance. It doesn’t improve public safety, it worsens it. It seems highly irrational to me to continue down this road, considering how it leads only to problems.

 

you are absolutely right. Its a shame that those in power do not make use of such logic.

 

for an essay on the "drug war" that stays wayyy off topic, and too much into the black market.

 

Whatever. The title isn't the main point anyways, duh.

 

lol, good to know you were studying the title of the essay instead of the conent, digitalldj.

Brandon, I agree with you on every point. Our government dosnt seem to realize that by making it illegal, they're hurting themselves. If they'd legalize herb, they'd see a huge drop in crime and make more room in their prisons for the real criminals.

 

aint the that goddamn truth

weed smokers shouldnt be locked up
bud is yummy
rapists,murderers,pedafiles,etc. should be the ones in jail
NOT people jsut looking to have a little responsible fun.

i just thought of an interesting test
take 200 people
100 get drunk and 100 get high
set a pair of them( 1 drunk 1 high) to do a task using 100 different tasks( driving a car,ridigna bike, math, etc.)

!!!!!!!!great thread!!!!!!!!
and who was the guy that made fun of the title...that was real dipshit thing to say!

 

it could make for one of these new reality/documentry movies coming in lately.

have a group of drunk and a group of stoned people, constatnly getting mroe drunk and more stoned , to do tasks and win games.

the drunk ppl wouldnt win anything at all lol!

 

That would be the coolest reality show ever! "Oh, sorry you drunk dumbass, you've lost, like all the other drunks. Get off the island!" And the stoners would all just be giggling and laughing and staring at things for hours between contests.

But yeah, I just wish we could work this out; everyone is going on and on about terrorism and "we're not safe" but we are also not safe because we lock up so many nonviolent drug offenders (not just weed smokers) and spend all this time and money on a useless counterproductive drug war...and meanwhile, thanks to this diversion, murderers and rapists walk free. Fuck, great analogy: Instead of going after the terrorists (murderers, rapists, etc) in Afghanistan, we irrationally decide to invade a country, Iraq (drug users) who, although we don't agree with their policies, they aren't a threat. So we get caught up in a war we can't win while letting the real villains go. Jesus Christ, this line of reasoning is all over the fucking place! We can't win!

(yeah, Iraq could have become a threat, and drug users probably wouldn't, but it's just an analogy).

 

Haha, even if the drunks do beat the stoners, what stoner is going to care?

Awsome essay, very true.

Even simpler than what you wrote, though, is isn't this the 'Land of the Free'? People should be free to decide what they want to do with their lives. But then legalizing pot would be a kick in the teeth to the slimeball tobbacco agencies and their government buddies...

 

haha fucking idiots. obviously i read the stupid essay and it's not really as good as you people think. AND Topic is everything in an Essay, but you know, all quality essays have topics that are irrelevant to the body of the peice right?

 

I'd appreciate some constructive criticism, specific examples about how I can improve it, besides the title. Thanks.