Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As long as there is a demand for something, someone will be willing to supply it. Simply put, the demand for drugs is still strong, even when costs of said drugs are increased by factors of 10 due to their illegality.
The two solutions are to decriminalize and regulate, or you have to make illegal sales so expensive that even with demand supplying them is not worth it.
The second system is what we currently have. It doesn't work. How do you regulate the cost of something outside of regulations? Do you make it more illegal? Give longer than life sentences?
I also think the 2nd system doesn't work, i was offering the binary solution.
If you execute everyone caught selling drugs, people would only risk selling for higher costs. at that point maybe you would see supply side enforcement affect demand.
If people selling drugs were concerned about being killed, they wouldn't be dealing drugs. Not given the type of people they have to deal with in order to get product. All mandatory death sentences would do would be to make it clear there was no up side to allowing oneself to be arrested. So you don't diminish the problem, you just increase the death toll.
I get we are on the same page. You cannot prohibit people from getting intoxicated. You can only make it more dangerous for them and the rest of society. The real problem is that the war on drugs does create a lot of votes and huge grants to police departments. It's a multi-billion dollar industry on both side.
Yes it is. Drug lords get rich, the low level drug sellers get rich, live fast, and die young, and police departments get more and more militarized by the year.
Right now if you sell drugs, yes there is a risk of death, but it is considered a fair risk for the rewards. If you (i know this is argumentum ad absurdum, but hear me out) make selling drugs a crime punishable by execution within, say 3 months of conviction, the current reward (price of drugs) would probably not be worth the risk to a large portion of the drug dealing population. Thus two things can happen, less people sell because there are less people willing to risk that level of death for current prices, or prices go up to entice more people to sell at the level of risk.
As long as there is a demand for something, someone will be willing to supply it. Simply put, the demand for drugs is still strong, even when costs of said drugs are increased by factors of 10 due to their illegality.
The two solutions are to decriminalize and regulate, or you have to make illegal sales so expensive that even with demand supplying them is not worth it.
The second system is what we currently have. It doesn't work. How do you regulate the cost of something outside of regulations? Do you make it more illegal? Give longer than life sentences?
I also think the 2nd system doesn't work, i was offering the binary solution.
If you execute everyone caught selling drugs, people would only risk selling for higher costs. at that point maybe you would see supply side enforcement affect demand.
If people selling drugs were concerned about being killed, they wouldn't be dealing drugs. Not given the type of people they have to deal with in order to get product. All mandatory death sentences would do would be to make it clear there was no up side to allowing oneself to be arrested. So you don't diminish the problem, you just increase the death toll.
I get we are on the same page. You cannot prohibit people from getting intoxicated. You can only make it more dangerous for them and the rest of society. The real problem is that the war on drugs does create a lot of votes and huge grants to police departments. It's a multi-billion dollar industry on both side.
Yes it is. Drug lords get rich, the low level drug sellers get rich, live fast, and die young, and police departments get more and more militarized by the year.
Right now if you sell drugs, yes there is a risk of death, but it is considered a fair risk for the rewards. If you (i know this is argumentum ad absurdum, but hear me out) make selling drugs a crime punishable by execution within, say 3 months of conviction, the current reward (price of drugs) would probably not be worth the risk to a large portion of the drug dealing population. Thus two things can happen, less people sell because there are less people willing to risk that level of death for current prices, or prices go up to entice more people to sell at the level of risk.
Or drug dealers move to using minors. Are we willing to execute 10 year olds? Will a 10 year old talk when he/she knows the parents and siblings will be killed. After all, why not kill the family since the death penalty can only be applied once? No, I think it will only make the problem worse and solve nothing.
The second system is what we currently have. It doesn't work. How do you regulate the cost of something outside of regulations? Do you make it more illegal? Give longer than life sentences?
I also think the 2nd system doesn't work, i was offering the binary solution.
If you execute everyone caught selling drugs, people would only risk selling for higher costs. at that point maybe you would see supply side enforcement affect demand.
If people selling drugs were concerned about being killed, they wouldn't be dealing drugs. Not given the type of people they have to deal with in order to get product. All mandatory death sentences would do would be to make it clear there was no up side to allowing oneself to be arrested. So you don't diminish the problem, you just increase the death toll.
I get we are on the same page. You cannot prohibit people from getting intoxicated. You can only make it more dangerous for them and the rest of society. The real problem is that the war on drugs does create a lot of votes and huge grants to police departments. It's a multi-billion dollar industry on both side.
Yes it is. Drug lords get rich, the low level drug sellers get rich, live fast, and die young, and police departments get more and more militarized by the year.
Right now if you sell drugs, yes there is a risk of death, but it is considered a fair risk for the rewards. If you (i know this is argumentum ad absurdum, but hear me out) make selling drugs a crime punishable by execution within, say 3 months of conviction, the current reward (price of drugs) would probably not be worth the risk to a large portion of the drug dealing population. Thus two things can happen, less people sell because there are less people willing to risk that level of death for current prices, or prices go up to entice more people to sell at the level of risk.
Or drug dealers move to using minors. Are we willing to execute 10 year olds? Will a 10 year old talk when he/she knows the parents and siblings will be killed. After all, why not kill the family since the death penalty can only be applied once? No, I think it will only make the problem worse and solve nothing.
I don't think the escalating penalty method would work either, although your response is a perfect example of the offense/defense paradox that has troubled man since one ape slapped another, then the slapped ape wore some leaves as protection, and the first ape grabbed a stick, etc.
