freediver wrote on Jun 28
th, 2007 at 5:52pm:
Governments have been fighting the trafficking of drugs for years with little success and a huge cost.
How do you measure the 'success' of prohibition.
Simple, if prohibition worked, supply would drop. It hasn't, for all intents and purposes it has increased.
Regardless of whether you use prohibition or harm minimisation tactics to combat drug demand, you have to find
social ways to make people choose the correct path for themselves. Fear of retribution does not reduce demand, the only way demand will drop is if the desire to consume drops.
State governments and police are gradually realising that end user prohibition simply does nothing, take out a user or street level dealer and a dozen more are lined up ready to fill the void. The way to fight illicit drug trade is to cut it off at the head, but with prohibition in place demand is still focused on illicit means of supply. Cut off the snakes head and two grow back. Remove prohibition, give a legal means of supply to the consumers, cut off the snakes head and it is less likely to come back, since people can source their goods elsewhere. If you talk to any moderate recreational drug user they will tell you that they would much prefer toavoid the shady drug dealers if they had the choice. Prohibition encourages organised crime, and petty crime.
Quote:Why would demand be reduced eventually? The reason why prohibition does not stop supply is that demand is relatively insensitive to price.
You really think that? You have a degree in economics right? And you are going to sit here and publish on record that you do not think demand of drugs is sensitive to price? I take it you have never actively sought out drugs for personal use