Marijuana A Chronic History

[Italian Outsider]

Except that in places with existing health care this already happens.

The fact that it exists, doesn't make it right, or economically efficient. I would personally find outrageous knowing that my taxes are used to cure people who, despite being aware that they were killing their health, kept going just to feel high. Legalizing drugs with free health care is a legalized robbery against those who don't use drugs. Why should I bother paying for something I will never use?

By legalizing drugs that ensures that they do at least pay for some of their health care.

They should pay the full package.
And it's not like producing drugs wouldn't cost money. Again, the government offers you a service, you pay for it.

 

[Italian Outsider]

I pay almost $13 a pack for cigarettes because of the ridiculous taxes on them. That should pay for any health issues that might occur due to my smoking.

But you get free health care. So instead of paying the ticket in case you need to cure yourself, you pay taxes to keep the service active in case you need it, sounds fine.

 

[monkeystyle]

Why should I bother paying for something I will never use?

Never got this argument. Do you pay for insurance on anything at all?

They should pay the full package.
And it's not like producing drugs wouldn't cost money. Again, the government offers you a service, you pay for it.

Well, yes. I think that we're not on the same wavelength here. Obviously the drugs would be taxed. Everything gets taxed.

 

[Italian Outsider]

Not to mention, government offered services have a tendency not to survive the free market, unless government prices are very low and thus low revenues.
The other option is the gov being the only one to sell drugs. Which essentially would mean returning at the current state of drugs distribution being non-legal.

 

[Italian Outsider]

Never got this argument. Do you pay for insurance on anything at all?

Nope. We pay taxes in general and tickets for specific stuff. Can't tell which specific stuff since I've been in hospital only once in my life.

 

[monkeystyle]

Not to mention, government offered services have a tendency not to survive the free market, unless government prices are very low and thus low revenues.
The other option is the gov being the only one to sell drugs. Which essentially would mean returning at the current state of drugs distribution being non-legal.

We do this already in Ontario with alcohol. You can't buy booze anywhere in Ontario aside from the LCBO (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) and the Beer Store, which are both run by the provincial government and the system seems to work here. You never hear of people being arrested for running illegal gin mills.

My idea would work the same way just with narcotics.

Nope. We pay taxes in general and tickets for specific stuff. Can't tell which specific stuff since I've been in a hospital only once in my life.

So you don't pay for car insurance or apartment insurance or anything else like that?

 

[Italian Outsider]

We do this already in Ontario with alcohol. You can't buy booze anywhere in Ontario aside from the LCBO (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) and the Beer Store, which are both run by the provincial government and the system seems to work here. You never hear of people being arrested for running illegal gin mills.

My idea would work the same way just with narcotics.

One of the reason it works is that there isn't a fully developed illegal market of alcohol.
I'll make an example: you've been in the Netherlands right? You've been to coffee shops and stuff, yet, I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong, you ended up buying from the Moroccan at the corner.
Suppose that, despite the presence of government shops, people would still consinstently pick the Moroccan at the corner, due to low prices or better quality. The drug issue wouldn't be solved and the government would have thrown loads of money in the toilet.

So you don't pay for car insurance or apartment insurance or anything else like that?

Yea, we pay for those.

 

[monkeystyle]

One of the reason it works is that there isn't a fully developed illegal market of alcohol.
I'll make an example: you've been in the Netherlands right? You've been to coffee shops and stuff, yet, I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong, you ended up buying from the Moroccan at the corner.
Suppose that, despite the presence of government shops, people would still consinstently pick the Moroccan at the corner, due to low prices or better quality. The drug issue wouldn't be solved and the government would have thrown loads of money in the toilet.

No, but I did have to look around quite a bit to find the quality product. All of those places though aren't necessarily regulated by the local government. At least not when it comes to the quality of the product.

I know I'm thinking ideally, but in an ideal situation the government would be intelligent (I am very well aware that this is where my idea goes all wrong) enough to produce a good quality product at the right price. I mean, otherwise the entire endeavor is purposeless.

Yea, we pay for those.

Then you pay for something that you aren't necessarily using, but when you do need it you'll be awfully glad you have it, right? Same goes for the health care that you don't use.

 

[Italian Outsider]

I know I'm thinking ideally, but in an ideal situation the government would be intelligent (I am very well aware that this is where my idea goes all wrong) enough to produce a good quality product at the right price. I mean, otherwise the entire endeavor is purposeless.

That's my main point. I'm not against legalizing drugs in principle, but if it has to be done, it has to be economically efficient. And as you can see, it's not 100% guaranteed that it will, and drug cartels will collapse in few days, which is generally the pro-drugs argument.

Then you pay for something that you aren't necessarily using, but when you do need it you'll be awfully glad you have it, right? Same goes for the health care that you don't use.

Car insurance is a good example:
If I don't own and don't drive a car, why in the friggin hell should I pay the insurance?
Therefore if I don't use drugs, why should I pay to cure drug users?
Insurance is paid by car users, just like drug cures should be paid by drug users.