Smack Ain't Whack Act of 2014

[Deus Naturae]

Even if you don't like markets, legal markets are pretty much always safer and better-functioning than criminalized markets. In a legal market, markets actors can take their disputes to a court of law. When a market is criminalized, violence is the only available method of conflict resolution. In the case of criminalized drugs, a dealer can basically do anything to an addict and the addict can't go to the authorities for fear of being jailed for illegal drug use. Even if you just want to criminalize dealing/sales, the same sort of problems will arise. A dealer could operate a coercive monopoly over sales in a certain areas (his turf) by using violence against attempted competitors, who have no method of legal redress. The dealer can then abuse addicts in his area in pretty much any way he wants. Point is, unless you're proposing to completely abolish markets for certain drugs (which is pretty much impossible), legalization is the only solution.

[Deus Naturae]

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.

[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.

[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?