Smack Ain't Whack Act of 2014

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

We could resolve the fear-of-being jailed issue by replacing jail with rehab (and perhaps community service if we absolutely must punish drug users, which I'm not the biggest fan of).

[TNF]

We have already done that, Alfie. Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 2013 ended prison-time for all drug offenders.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Then Mr. Deus's concern is thrown out.

[Simfan34]

So what penalties do drug users face?

[TNF]

So what penalties do drug users face?

None. Hard drug use is decriminalized, soft drug use is fully legal.

[Simfan34]

Since people are free to go shooting themselves up in TNF's America, what is the point of this legislation, Senator?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I generally like markets, but there are some things that have to remain illegal for the public safety. We prohibit the marketing of unsafe products, of stuff that is environmentally dangerous and many other things as well. You are saying that maintaining illegality creates a black market, yes, but so does the taxes and regulations of a legal market. Is the creation of a legal market for hard drugs, which from the data Nappy posted is a smaller market overall then say pot, going to create enough a marginal reduction in the size of said black market when you cosnider the continuation of such as induced by the aforementioned taxes and regulations? 

Operations can only get so small and whilst you may reduce it somewhat I think you hit a situation of diminishing returns whereby it will hit that subert tax/regulatory regime niche, and thus further elimination of the black market by legalization is impossible.

Obviously the size of the black market will be reduced, because currently all relevant transactions are conducted on black markets. The point I'm trying to make is that if market actors can't take their grievances to a court of law without fear of being imprisoned themselves, violence will necessarily be the only available method of conflict resolution. Right now we have a situation where violent dealers can do whatever they want to addicts because a) the addicts are afraid to go to the legal authorities for fear of being jailed, and b) cartels can maintain coercive monopolies over large areas because potential competitors can't go after them for their acts of criminal violence, lest they themselves be imprisoned for drug dealing. Yes, taxes and regulations will ensure that black markets continue to exist, but at least with legalization cartels and criminals can actually be taken to court for engaging in violent crime, and addicts will no longer be at the total mercy of one monopolistic supplier.

Yes, but there is such a thing as minimum organizational structure and my concern is that the reduction will be neglible as that induced by the taxes/regulations will ensure that that minimum organizational capacity as wel las the violence connected with it maintains. I could agree to the legalization argument if I thought the marginal benefit excideeding the cost and here I don't see that. It is not like with pot where the risks are far less from wide usage and usage is high enough to ensure a significant reduction in black market operations. If you could show me some numbers, I would be open to changing my mind though.

[Deus Naturae]

Yes, but there is such a thing as minimum organizational structure and my concern is that the reduction will be neglible as that induced by the taxes/regulations will ensure that that minimum organizational capacity as wel las the violence connected with it maintains. I could agree to the legalization argument if I thought the marginal benefit excideeding the cost and here I don't see that. It is not like with pot where the risks are far less from wide usage and usage is high enough to ensure a significant reduction in black market operations. If you could show me some numbers, I would be open to changing my mind though.

It's literally impossible for black-market activity to increase as a result of this because all of the activity that will remain in black markets due to taxation/regulation will have already been there prior to legalization. And, if anything, that's just an argument against taxation of hard drug sales. In fact, I honestly don't see the majority of dealers collecting the 25% excise tax rate, so IMO this legislation would be much more effective if you guys took that out. Regardless, this will still net beneficial in either case (at least the part legalizing hard drug sales) because black-market activity can only decrease as a result of legalization.

[Deus Naturae]

Then Mr. Deus's concern is thrown out.

Hard drug sales are still illegal according to the wiki, so my point about violent monopolistic cartels abusing addicts is still valid.

[TNF]

Since people are free to go shooting themselves up in TNF's America, what is the point of this legislation, Senator?

To end the black market and bring those sales out into the open. I've made that clear from the very beginning of this thread.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

So what penalties do drug users face?

None. Hard drug use is decriminalized, soft drug use is fully legal.

That system sounds perfect IMHO.

[TNF]

So what penalties do drug users face?

None. Hard drug use is decriminalized, soft drug use is fully legal.

That system sounds perfect IMHO.

Not if it allows drug cartels to keep making money on the black market.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, but there is such a thing as minimum organizational structure and my concern is that the reduction will be neglible as that induced by the taxes/regulations will ensure that that minimum organizational capacity as wel las the violence connected with it maintains. I could agree to the legalization argument if I thought the marginal benefit excideeding the cost and here I don't see that. It is not like with pot where the risks are far less from wide usage and usage is high enough to ensure a significant reduction in black market operations. If you could show me some numbers, I would be open to changing my mind though.

It's literally impossible for black-market activity to increase as a result of this because all of the activity that will remain in black markets due to taxation/regulation will have already been there prior to legalization. And, if anything, that's just an argument against taxation of hard drug sales. In fact, I honestly don't see the majority of dealers collecting the 25% excise tax rate, so IMO this legislation would be much more effective if you guys took that out. Regardless, this will still net beneficial in either case (at least the part legalizing hard drug sales) because black-market activity can only decrease as a result of legalization.

I never said it would increase. I am questioning whether the decrease in the organization capacity of the cartels from basis of illegal to sell to simply tax/regulatory aversion will be enough to justify the downsides that will likely be incurred.

[Lumine]

Since discussion seems a bit dead here and this bill is a divisive one (in my personal case I wouldn't know how to amend it to vote for it), perhaps we should move to a final vote?

[Deus Naturae]

I never said it would increase. I am questioning whether the decrease in the organization capacity of the cartels from basis of illegal to sell to simply tax/regulatory aversion will be enough to justify the downsides that will likely be incurred.

Alright, I see what you're saying. Again, I agree that the taxation part is a bad idea and should be removed from the bill. Also, won't the downsides (by which I'm assuming you mean increased use) be proportionate to the amount of sales that emerge from black markets? In other words, if legal activity barely increases due to taxation/regulation, wouldn't the "downsides" you speak of barely increase as well?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I never said it would increase. I am questioning whether the decrease in the organization capacity of the cartels from basis of illegal to sell to simply tax/regulatory aversion will be enough to justify the downsides that will likely be incurred.

Alright, I see what you're saying. Again, I agree that the taxation part is a bad idea and should be removed from the bill. Also, won't the downsides (by which I'm assuming you mean increased use) be proportionate to the amount of sales that emerge from black markets? In other words, if legal activity barely increases due to taxation/regulation, wouldn't the "downsides" you speak of barely increase as well?

Not necessarily. It is very possible for the legal activity to increase substantially both from current and new users and whilst demand for the illegal side will slide, it might not cause an equivalent reduction in cartel violence below a certain point, sort of a minimum capacity for production and distribution. A minimum sustained by the trafic from tax and regulatory aversion.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Section 2 of the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 2013 is hereby amended to read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 2: Hard Drug Legalization

1. Existing criminal penalties concerning the sale of heroin, morphine, methadone, opium, amphetamine, ketamine, PCP, cocaine and methamphetamine and the substances, plants, or chemicals needed for their processing, shall be abolished throughout the Republic of Atlasia.

2. The commercial selling of the substances mentioned in Subsection 1 of Section 2 shall be limited to persons over the age of sixteen.

3. All persons currently serving time in prison for the possession, transportation, sale, or consumption of the substances mentioned in Subsection 1, who have not committed any other crime, and who have not already been transferred to rehabilitation centers (as per the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 2013) to fully deal with the scope of their addiction are hereby granted amnesty. Those currently in rehabilitation programs shall be given the option of choosing to continue said programs or return home, effective upon the passage of this legislation.

4. The sale of substances mentioned in Subsection 1 shall be taxed at the following rates:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

5.4. The commercial sale of products mentioned in Subsection 4 shall be subject to a 25% excise tax at the point of sale.

6.5. No person shall be involuntarily committed to any rehabilitation program for drug abuse, effective upon the passage of this legislation.

Section 3: Implementation
 
Unless otherwise specified herein, the provisions of this legislation shall take full effect January 1, 2015.[/quote]

Clearing a few things up with this amendment.

[windjammer]

Senators, you have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Windjammer?

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Section 2 of the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 2013 is hereby amended to read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 2: Hard Drug Legalization

1. Existing criminal penalties concerning the sale of heroin, morphine, methadone, opium, amphetamine, ketamine, PCP, cocaine and methamphetamine and the substances, plants, or chemicals needed for their processing, shall be abolished throughout the Republic of Atlasia.

2. The commercial selling of the substances mentioned in Subsection 1 of Section 2 shall be limited to persons over the age of sixteen.

3. All persons currently serving time in prison for the possession, transportation, sale, or consumption of the substances mentioned in Subsection 1, who have not committed any other crime, and who have not already been transferred to rehabilitation centers (as per the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 2013) to fully deal with the scope of their addiction are hereby granted amnesty. Those currently in rehabilitation programs shall be given the option of choosing to continue said programs or return home, effective upon the passage of this legislation.



4 The commercial sale of products mentioned in Subsection 4 shall be subject to a 25% excise tax at the point of sale.

5.No person shall be involuntarily committed to any rehabilitation program for drug abuse, effective upon the passage of this legislation.

Section 3: Implementation
 
Unless otherwise specified herein, the provisions of this legislation shall take full effect January 1, 2015.[/quote]

Without any objection, Senator TNF's amendment has been adopted.

[TNF]

Senators who oppose this: what substances could you see yourselves voting in favor of legalizing, if not all of them?

[Lumine]

Senators who oppose this: what substances could you see yourselves voting in favor of legalizing, if not all of them?

Opium and morphine, perhaps, but under no circumstances I can vote in favor of cocaine and heroin.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The ones that are legal now.

[TNF]

Cocaine and heroin are the ones that have the absolute largest black market impact, and I'd say if we're going to legalize any of them, it has to be those two, precisely because the impact legalization would have.

[Lumine]

Cocaine and heroin are the ones that have the absolute largest black market impact, and I'd say if we're going to legalize any of them, it has to be those two, precisely because the impact legalization would have.

Even assuming it would have a benefit in terms of revenue and reducing the black market (and I'm not convinced of the second one), what about the social and biological effects of these drugs? They are incredibly dangerous, and not only for a single individual, they are harmful to whoever surrounds him. Do we really want to allow for people to eventually develop paranoia and other pathologies thanks to this?