Children addicted to drugs

Actually, I have some knowledge of economics, especially the economics of drugs and the drug war.

I did not "make up" some oddball reason. The studies done in societies more liberal in their drug policy have found that black markets dry up when the products are regulated. There is not enough money for organized crime to justify the risk involved in providing the products to children. At that point, it is much more difficult, statistically, for children to get these drugs. This is one of the principal reasons that the rates of teen drug, especially mar1juana, use in Holland is less than half of that of the US. In addition, you have less of the "forbidden fruit" effect, which draws children like flies.

As has been covered in this thread, both tobacco and alcohol use among teens has been decreasing dramatically since the mid-90's because of the stronger regulations imposed on the market. This is the same effect we could have by regulating other markets.

AS gun laws have gotten tougher and people have become more aware of situations like Columbine, there have been fewer and fewer of these incidences. Add to that the miniscule percentage of children that have access to guns. If you take away the guns that are provided because of the drug profits pursuant to prohibition, there is a statistically insignificant number of children getting ahold of guns. Especially when compared with the 50% of high school seniors who have tried illegal drugs. I wouldn't call it EASY access.

Yeah, sure, p*rn is regulated. We have the Internet, 'nuff said. BTW, this is not exactly an example of something dangerous that could kill a child (like a gun) or ruin a life (like drugs). You are talking about something that other cultures allow on broadcast TV. You don't see the people in Brazil going on killing rampages because they saw some t**s on the tube.

Which does not change the FACT that in regulated markets, kids have dramatically lower accessibility and markedly lower use rates.

Finally something we agree on. A regulated market has the ability to affect the demand side through treatment and education as part of the distribution process. Having a conversation with a doctor or treatment professional is one of the surest ways to get someone to decide not to use drugs. If the government and legitimate businesses control the supply, they can control the messages being given our with the product. Dealers and peers are telling our kids that drug use is no big deal. We need to impress upon them that drug use IS a HUGE deal that could negatively impact their entire lives.

Regulating the market is not going to change the acceptability of drugs. Are you going to think any differently of a heroin junkie or crackhead just because the law is different? Not me, I will still see those people as sad, stupid people who have gotten themselves into one of the worst positions one can be in. With a regulated market we will still see the product as poison, poison whose dangers MUST be mitigated by responsible agencies.

 

Oops. Erroneous post. Can anyone tell me how to delete it?

 

I agree with the general message in your post, which I take to be that everyone in this country should exercise personal responibility and accept that responsibility for their actions. In addition, we should take responsibility for our children while they are under our care.

I have a unique perspective on this topic which inclines me to disagree with you on age limits. Personal responsibility is fine, but there are some people who do not have the capacity to make mature decisions about things like using drugs and alcohol, posessing guns, or voting. The bulk of these people are minors.

Children do not have the ability to defer gratification, virtually guaranteeing that if they take a drug, they will take that drug again. People under the age of 17 or 18 are at a much higher risk for addiction and problem use, and this is my strongest argument for ending prohibition because prohibition makes these drugs redily available for any child who wants to find them.

A regulated market for adults would dry up the black market for children and would change the dynamic for how kids acquire drugs. Under a regulated market, minors will presumably acquire drugs from parents and older siblings rather than criminals who are interested in long term users. This would negate the "gateway drug" effect as family members will be much less likely to introduce teens to the more dangerous drugs than dealers who want to see a lifelong customer.

 

I know, I was just giving examples of other things we keep out of the hands of kids because of the danger involved. Personally, I believe that giving someone under 18 cocaine or heroin is on the same level as giving them a gun. There is about the same probability of something disastrous happening from a teen with heroin as from a teen with a gun.

Except that few teenagers with enough money to blow on drugs work for and earn their money. There is evidence that suggests that drug use is more prevalent among kids of the upper class.

The point is that I, despite being a proponent of regulating non-prescription psychoactive substances, am also a realist who understands that, especially in our moralistic culture, age limits would be necessary to implement the type of regulatory structure I have in mind. Indeed, my number one motivation and priority is keeping drugs out of the hands of people who do not have the capacity to use them sans consequence. Children make up the majority of that group to me.

I know that if we are able to keep kids from using drugs until adulthood, they will be able to make rational decisions about which drugs they will try. If an adult who has been educated as to the effects of a substance CHOOSES to injest that substance, that is where total personal responsibility takes over.

 

Agreed. If more parents did their job, a whole host of problems other than drug abuse would also go away.

So, there is nobody reading this who disagrees with me? Please present your views so that we can hash this out. By the feedback received over the past 24 hours or so, it seems that everyone agrees that regulation would be a better model than prohibition. That can't be true, because the pollsters say it isn't (sarcastic emphasis)!

Come on, does anyone have an intelligent rebuttal?

Maybe it is just a slow weekend. There is always hope next week.

 

Perhaps I am fighting a Quixotic battle, but the beginning of change is debate and discussion. We will not change the world for the better if we cower in our basements and ignore the facts. I would rather be remembered as one of the few who stood up and fought for what's right rather than be forgotten as one of the millions who allowed injustice, profiteering, and the spread of addiction through the ranks of our young people.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
- Mohandus Gandhi

I would argue that they are now fighting us, arresting deputized city officials, electioneering, spreading propaganda. That would put us at stage 3.

 

There is always hope.

Propaganda has a way of permeating a society. This is why we need to shout the truth from the rooftops if we are to get people to start seeing it.

Maybe so, but it will be time well spent if we can take drugs from our schools, playgrounds, and teen parties to put them in the hands of responsible adults, businesses, and the government.