I guess I keep coming back to the same response… why is Amsterdam one of the most crime and drug-infested cities in the world when it is largely legal to have and sell drugs (especially pot) there? This is one of many examples that would seem to disprove the above statement (unless the thought is that Amsterdam is only drug-infested because of the demand in other countries, which might have some validity).

But Amsterdam is just one city. It attracts tourists, sure, but tourism and travel is easier in Europe. We can’t presume that a similar flood of tourists would engulf America if the US ended drug prohibition. For one thing, it’s expensive to fly to America. For another, it’s a big country. It’s one thing to inundate one city with drug tourists; it’s quite another to inundate the world’s third most populous nation.

I guess I keep coming back to the same response… why is Amsterdam one of the most crime and drug-infested cities in the world when it is largely legal to have and sell drugs (especially pot) there?

A very important question. I think it would a be a good study to attempt to determine why Amsterdam has high crime.

However, correlation does not equal causation on the matter of drug tolerance and crime. Your attitude after this very important question seems to be, if it is not drug tolerance, than what else could it be? This is not a scientific conclusion.

Natural law. I’m not sure that term was around when I went to college. Is it new? By your definition I’d just call it common sense.

Regardless of what you thing of as a natural law, I simply cannot view all of life in economic terms. Your example of marriage is one I never would have thought of. (I do understand how wives are considered an economic resource in many “primitive” cultures, but that is a different topic.) Whether drugs should be legal or not is NOT, in my opinion, an economic question.

So when it comes to legalizing drugs, I take the same approach as to legalizing abortion–I vote against it because of a principle. I don’t want buying drugs to be thought of as having no more consequence than buying ice cream, so I make a statement to that effect by criminalizing the sale and the purchase of such.

Will that, in fact, change how much drug trade there is? I don’t know. Quite possibly not. But saying it is OK to buy and sell drugs by decriminalizing them is saying just that: drugs are OK. I don’t want to say that.

The very fact that were “fighting” the drug war is causing us to lose. With every single “victory” - we are bringing about more drug use and encouraging more of the anti-social and criminal activity that accompanies a black market.

This statement seems inconsistent with the rest of your post, as does the entire premise that higher prices do not reduce consumption. Let’s take Bolivia as an example. When my wife was there, she discovered you could buy a full bunch of bananas for a penny. These were better tasting, larger bananas than you could find in most grocery stores in the US. Then she realized that an apple would cost $5. It was a scrawny, nasty looking apple, far less desirable than you can pick up cheaply in the US. What impact does this have on consumption? As a result of the price difference, most people buy the bananas. Sure, the wealthy and those addicted to apples will still buy them, but consumption is reduced.

Going back to the drug war, raising prices DOES reduce consumption. There are a large number of people who would “try” drugs if they were cheaper or less legally risky. They do not because of the laws and high prices. Does this make a difference for the junkie? Probably not. It also results in a wealthy black market that funds and encourages criminal behavior. A rational case can be made that the downsides of the drug war outweigh its benefits, or even that government should not mandate individual health (what next, a ban on fast food, one might ask). It is NOT accurate to say that raising the price of something by increasing its scarcity does not reduce consumption though. Basic economics dictate that as price of a non-essential good increases, consumption decreases. This is true of gas, it is true of electricity, and it is true of cocaine.

Of course, it we REALLY wanted to go to war on drugs we would institute mandatory detox treatment for all first time offenders, with regular checkups mandated after release. Repeated offenses would eventually land one in lifetime confinement to a detox facility. With no repeat customers, high prices would drive drug sellers out of business. In the modern age, these people could even be allowed to telecommute, though be under regular surveillance to prevent drug use. Of course, this goes back to the question of whether such an invasion of personal liberties to prevent drug use is ethical, and whether similar systems could be imposed on those who over eat.

I don’t necessarily agree with the correllation/causation argument presented here, but since you’ve brought it up multiple times, I feel like I should address this argument.

Where are you getting the idea that Amersterdam is especially “squalid” and “crime-infested”? Based on what data? I’ve taken a couple of minutes to explore some data…

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

The Netherlands ranks 51st in murders (0.0111538 per 1,000 people), versus the USA at 24th (0.042802 per 1,000 people). The US has four times the murders that the Netherlands does. I don’t think this is enough to judge a nation, and in fact I’d rather live in the US than in the Netherlands, but you’ve made the argument that the Netherlands is especially crime-infested, and this just isn’t the case.

The US also has higher rates of car theft, rapes, and total crime…

Netherlands:

Variable Amount/description Rank
Crime > Car thefts (per capita) 2.33559 per 1,000 people
Crime > Rapes (per capita) 0.100445 per 1,000 people
Crime > Total crimes (per capita) 79.5779 per 1,000 people

USA:

Variable Amount/description Rank
Crime > Car thefts (per capita) 3.8795 per 1,000 people
Crime > Rapes (per capita) 0.301318 per 1,000 people
Crime > Total crimes (per capita) 80.0645 per 1,000 people

Furthermore, a study of the Best Cities in which to live (2007) found Amsterdam ranking 13th. The very best US city ranked 27th.

[http://www.citymayors.com/features/quality_survey.html]

Do you think a government campaign against drugs by attacking the demand side may work? I don’t know exactly how they’d do that though.

Jasen, I think Atanamis’ last paragraph explains how it would have to happen. I would say it would likely have to go farther because of the chemical effect - you would have to have a whole separate police force, databases on everyone, enforcement without warrants or privacy considerations and severe criminal sentences (capitol punishment, life, massive fines) for use.

Actually, it is exactly 14 places BETTER than the best the USA (the country spearheading the War on Drugs) has to offer. From this I deduce that countries strict on drugs make their cities squalid.