Are most britains up for ending prohibition of drug?

[Mise]

Clearly people are willing to pay drug-dealer prices for heroin. There's no reason why that should change if dealing those drugs became legal.

 

[Samson]

Do you honestly believe that the cost will be reduced as drastically? I doubt it to be honest. People have already argued for taxing such drugs which is obviously going to bump the price up.

I do not expect them to be available in the off licence or whatever for 1p, but I am sure it would be much less than on the streets now. I would expect registered addicts to be able to get it for very little, perhaps even free.

Secondly, an important point to review is how the legalisation of certain drugs affects international politics. For some drugs the only sources are countries which are less than stable (Afghanistan for one). I'm not convinced that the Government will be willing to pump even more money over there by legalising all drugs.

Some drugs yes, but opium poppies will grow well in most places (certainly in the UK). I think coca bushes are a lot harder to grow, and take longer to get establised. I think that the change from illegal trade to legitamate comodity would help these countries become more stable.

 

[Samson]

Clearly people are willing to pay drug-dealer prices for heroin. There's no reason why that should change if dealing those drugs became legal.

Sorry, I am not sure I understand you. If they were available for much less than drug-dealer prices, why would anyone be willing to pay more?

The problem at the moment is your have a somewhat in-elastic demand and a dificult supply. If you increase the supply the cost (without tax) will fall massivly.

 

[IglooDame]

I sometimes think that the reason the US government keeps insisting that marijuana is a "gateway drug" is that they are indeed correct - but not in the way everyone thinks; it is that legalizing marijuana and finding that the world doesn't come to a screeching halt will quickly lead to calls for legalization of other drugs.

 

[Mise]

Sorry, I am not sure I understand you. If they were available for much less than drug-dealer prices, why would anyone be willing to pay more?

The problem at the moment is your have a somewhat in-elastic demand and a dificult supply. If you increase the supply the cost (without tax) will fall massivly.

There's no reason to think that shop-owners will sell drugs for any less than street-price. Nor is there any reason to think that supply will increase, since there is obviously a fixed demand for drugs (i.e. people who don't take drugs now won't suddenly start taking heroin by the thousands if it were legal).

 

[ComradeDavo]

What do you all think about the chances of it happening? I have always thought it was very unlikely, because so many people just think drugs are bad, mkay, so we must make them illegal. Both her and the BBC site seem to have a majority for legalisation, but I guess it is a pretty skewed sample.

Marauajana I think could happen in 10-15 years, as generally more and more people are saying that they think it should be legal and that obviously adds to it's case.

Also the Liberal Democrats take a pretty liberal stand on it and they are currently power sharing in Scotland and could end up power sharing in Westminster the way current things are going (i.e. a ressurgent Tory party but quite enough to actually get a majority) so we could end up with members of the government who sympathise with the pro-legalise cause, if things work out how I want them to

 

[Samson]

There's no reason to think that shop-owners will sell drugs for any less than street-price. Nor is there any reason to think that supply will increase, since there is obviously a fixed demand for drugs (i.e. people who don't take drugs now won't suddenly start taking heroin by the thousands if it were legal).

I think it will. Let us consider the situation were it is untaxed (very unlikely). It costs say 100 times what it costs to produce wheat, so it would be about 10,000 GBP / tonne. At the moment it is about 10 GBP per 0.1 gram, probably averaging about 20% purity. That is about 500,000,000 GBP per tonne. With this sort of discrepancy between production cost and cost to consumers if shops did not sell it for less then I would on-line and make a million.

Remember that most people could always grow it for themselves. I bet na addict would not need much land to keep them going all year.

 

[Kayak]

I sometimes think that the reason the US government keeps insisting that marijuana is a "gateway drug" is that they are indeed correct - but not in the way everyone thinks; it is that legalizing marijuana and finding that the world doesn't come to a screeching halt will quickly lead to calls for legalization of other drugs.

And would that really be a bad thing? Thing of all the money we waste on drug enforcement. Half that spent on treatment would do wonders. Studies indicate that 1 dollar spent on treatment equals 4 dollars in law enforcement.

How many hard drug uses are there in the US anyway? Anybody know?

I include this link as food for thought:http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.chapman22may22,0,3315016.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines

 

[IglooDame]

And would that really be a bad thing? Thing of all the money we waste on drug enforcement. Half that spent on treatment would do wonders. Studies indicate that 1 dollar spent on treatment equals 4 dollars in law enforcement.

How many hard drug uses are there in the US anyway? Anybody know?

I include this link as food for thought:http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.chapman22may22,0,3315016.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines

It absolutely would not be a bad thing - for the public, anyway. But we can't have all these elected officials and their appointed deputies get all kinds of egg on their faces, can we?

 

[Mise]

I think it will. Let us consider the situation were it is untaxed (very unlikely). It costs say 100 times what it costs to produce wheat, so it would be about 10,000 GBP / tonne. At the moment it is about 10 GBP per 0.1 gram, probably averaging about 20% purity. That is about 500,000,000 GBP per tonne. With this sort of discrepancy between production cost and cost to consumers if shops did not sell it for less then I would on-line and make a million.

Remember that most people could always grow it for themselves. I bet na addict would not need much land to keep them going all year.

So... why would a legitmate businessman drop their prices to gain market share, whereas a drug dealer wouldn't?

 

[Kayak]

It absolutely would not be a bad thing - for the public, anyway. But we can't have all these elected officials and their appointed deputies get all kinds of egg on their faces, can we?

Like they aren't used to it already.

Too many have a vested interest in keeping drugs illegal.

 

[Kayak]

So... why would a legitmate businessman drop their prices to gain market share, whereas a drug dealer wouldn't?

That would depend on whether the dealer had enough capital to compete. A large opperation, like the cig companies for example, would be able to produce and distibute so cheaply that competing would be difficult.

 

[Mise]

That would depend on whether the dealer had enough capital to compete. A large opperation, like the cig companies for example, would be able to produce and distibute so cheaply that competing would be difficult.

That's a particularly bad example, given the markup on cigarettes being so high (even without taxation).

Samson is saying that prices would drop, which I don't believe they would by any significant margin. All that would happen is that the drug dealers would become legal. If some retailers begin to sell marijuana, they would wish to sell at the maximum possible price, which is the price that drug dealers sell at. Clearly, people would rather buy from a recognised retailer than a drug dealer, so the drug dealer would lose all of his customers to the retailer, who continues to sell at street-price. Since demand is fixed, then so is the quantity supplied by the drug industry as a whole. If another retailer (or several) enter the market, they would have to price slightly less than the original retailer, in order to sell anything. There is then an excess of supply. But we have already said that the total quantity supplied by the industry must be constant, due to a fixed demand. So we can't reduce prices to increase the amount of goods sold - the first company must sell less drugs at the same price.

I hope that made sense...

 

[Kayak]

That's a particularly bad example, given the markup on cigarettes being so high (even without taxation).

Samson is saying that prices would drop, which I don't believe they would by any significant margin. All that would happen is that the drug dealers would become legal. If some retailers begin to sell marijuana, they would wish to sell at the maximum possible price, which is the price that drug dealers sell at. Clearly, people would rather buy from a recognised retailer than a drug dealer, so the drug dealer would lose all of his customers to the retailer, who continues to sell at street-price.

Why does the price of gas drop then? Competition. If I can make up in volume if I sell for lower price I will. Market share is all important. Would you rather be the Wallmart or the corner store?

 

[Mise]

Why does the price of gas drop then? Competition. If I can make up in volume if I sell for lower price I will. Market share is all important. Would you rather be the Wallmart or the corner store?

Then why are there still cornerstores?

It doesn't follow that higher sales will generate higher profits. Both Walmart and the cornerstore are profit maximising, so I would choose either.

 

[Samson]

So... why would a legitmate businessman drop their prices to gain market share, whereas a drug dealer wouldn't?

No, a drug dealer would drop his prives as supply increases. It has allready happened, the supply of cocaine and marijuana has gone up in recent years and the price has gone down and quality has increased.

That's a particularly bad example, given the markup on cigarettes being so high (even without taxation).

Samson is saying that prices would drop, which I don't believe they would by any significant margin. All that would happen is that the drug dealers would become legal. If some retailers begin to sell marijuana, they would wish to sell at the maximum possible price, which is the price that drug dealers sell at. Clearly, people would rather buy from a recognised retailer than a drug dealer, so the drug dealer would lose all of his customers to the retailer, who continues to sell at street-price. Since demand is fixed, then so is the quantity supplied by the drug industry as a whole. If another retailer (or several) enter the market, they would have to price slightly less than the original retailer, in order to sell anything. There is then an excess of supply. But we have already said that the total quantity supplied by the industry must be constant, due to a fixed demand. So we can't reduce prices to increase the amount of goods sold - the first company must sell less drugs at the same price.

I hope that made sense...

No but we can increase the amount of drugs available, thus creating a buyers market and prices will go down as everyone tries to attract the few buyers.

It is simple economics. If I can produce opium for 10 GBP per kg and the current selling price is 500,000 GBP per Kg I will start selling it for 100,000 per Kg and make a big proft. Someone else will then start selling it for 50,000 and so it will go on untill the price is around 10 GBP + shipping etc. + resnoble profit.

 

[Mise]

It is simple economics. If I can produce opium for 10 GBP per kg and the current selling price is 500,000 GBP per Kg I will start selling it for 100,000 per Kg and make a big proft. Someone else will then start selling it for 50,000 and so it will go on untill the price is around 10 GBP + shipping etc. + resnoble profit.

It's not as simple as that. Lets say that, if you sell for 500,000 £/Kg, you can sell 100 Kg/day. There is a market for 200 Kg/day maximum. So at current prices, you generate 100 * 500,000 = 50,000,000 £/day. If you dropped your prices to 100,000 £/kg, you'd be able to sell the full 200 Kg/day, but you'd only make 200 * 100,000 £/day = 20,000,000 £/day, meaning you'd lose £30,000,000 per day in revenue.

EDIT: I can't put numbers into my calculator...

 

[Samson]

It's not as simple as that. Lets say that, if you sell for 500,000 £/Kg, you can sell 100 Kg/day. There is a market for 200 Kg/day maximum. So at current prices, you generate 100 * 500,000 = 10,000,000 £/day. If you dropped your prices to 100,000 £/kg, you'd be able to sell the full 200 Kg/day, but you'd only make 200 * 100,000 £/day = 2,000,000 £/day, meaning you'd lose £8,000,000 per day in revenue.

Yes, but if you came along and started selling it at 100,000 £/kg you would make the 2,000,000 £/day more than you made before (because before you made none).

 

[Mise]

Yes, but if you came along and started selling it at 100,000 £/kg you would make the 2,000,000 £/day more than you made before (because before you made none).

Whereas if I sold at £500,000 I could have made £33,333,333 instead...

(also the numbers in my last post were slightly wrong, sorry.)

 

[Samson]

Whereas if I sold at £500,000 I could have made £33,333,333 instead...

(also the numbers in my last post were slightly wrong, sorry.)

No you would not, because SOMEONE would always sell it for less, if they could make some sort of a profit. Everyone will buy it from the cheapest seller.

This is how economics works. If you think for some reason the market in drugs would be different from every other comodity then give your reasons.