Tax and Regulate Libertarians

[Perd Hapley]

Or, Good for the Gooseses, part II, in which fistful describes something puzzling.  This is not meant as a "gotcha" toward Libertarians, because there may well be something I don't understand here.  I'm just pointing out something that seems ironic.  As I've stated before, I'm still making up my mind on the "War on Some Drugs."  

One of the common arguments is that if drugs were legal, they could be taxed and regulated like any other business.  This would take organized crime out of the drug racket, and drugs would be safer and cheaper.  Tax revenues could be used to pay for treatment and rehabilitation centers, etc.  The same argument has been used for prostitution and probably a few other things.  

But on gun fora, these arguments are usually coming from libertarians, who would decrease or eliminate taxes and reg's in many other areas and, obstensibly, wouldn't support "social spending" for things like rehab clinics or STD check-ups for hookers.  So, is this line of argument consistent for libertarians?  Or are they borrowed from big-gov. leftists by libertarians who haven't thought them through?  

Again, this is not meant as a "gotcha" toward Libertarians, because there may well be something I don't understand here.  I'm just pointing out something that seems ironic.  As I've stated before, I'm still making up my mind on the "War on Some Drugs."  

[BrokenPaw]

Fistful,

It's possible that you're confusing "Big-L" and "small-L"  libertarians.  I haven't specifically noted the posts that you're referring to, so I can't be sure.  But.  The Libertarian party line is "reduce taxation, deregulate everything now, incremental steps toward our goals is a fool's hope (this is my interpretation anyway)", whereas libertarians tend not to be so absolutist; many of them feel that some of the stated ideals of the Big-Ls are not realistic or worth pursuing.

Is it possible that you're getting the "no taxes and no social programs at all" thought from Big-L sorts, and the "legalize and tax drugs and fund rehab with the revenue" ideas from the Small-L sorts?

I find myself in the small-L camp more than the Big-L one, for the record.  Small-L libertarians need a new name.  Because they're really an entirely different animal from Big-Ls, and it's confusing to everyone involved.  

-BP

[HankB]

From what I can see, Libertarians believe you, as an adult, have the right to burn your brains out on dope, so long as you don't endanger others (for example, don't drive when high) or shirk your legitimate responsibilities by letting your kids go hungry because you spent your grocery money on dope.

Beyond that, your bad choices do NOT impose responsibilities on others in any way, shape, or form - so the taxpayers are under no obligation to pay for your rehab or treat you if you OD.

Testing hookers for VD? Well, if you patronize a hooker, you KNOW what the risks are - why should society pay to make YOUR decisions safe?

Make a bad choice and catch VD from a hooker - see above comments about drug rehab.

As far as taxes . . . serious Libertarians I know aren't anarchists, they don't oppose ALL taxes, they just oppose a level of taxation sufficient to fund things the government ought not be doing at all. The current thinking is that this includes somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 of the Federal government.

[The Rabbi]

I am always amazed at the Libertarian view that people live in a vacuum and when they made horrible choices there is no collateral damage.  Art Eatman already mentioned crack babies.  What about the john who gets VD and then brings it home to his wife?  Or worse, his pregnant wife?  Everyone lives in a nexus of others who are more or less dependent on him.  When the dependency is great and the person craps out there is often no one left to pick up the pieces.  And the Libertarian answer always seems to be "let 'em die in the street."
Or the more intelligent answer is "private foundations will pick up the slack, as they did in the 19th C."  It isn't a bad idea and one promoted by one of my heroes, Milton Friedman.  But life has changed a lot since the 19thC, and high medical costs are one of the main changes.  Assuming private foundations will have the resources to provide the kind of medical care that the gov't now provides is just foolish.

[AJ Dual]

I understand what you're saying fistful, if  legalization takes place in the unregulated "Libertarian Vaccuum", there's no tax revenue to combat the remaining negative impact of drug abuse.

Honestly though, I think the "Big L" version drug legalization argument would probably still be better than what we have now. The societal savings and the "peace dividend" from the crime reduction and ancilary bad acts associated with the drug trade being legalized would be huge. Besides, from what we can tell about the rates of drug abuse and addiction, the percentage of abusers and overdoses has remained pretty consistent throughout American history. From the beginning of the 20th century when drugs weren't illegal, to now when we are simultaneously attempting both the "war on drugs" and "treatment".

Also, the number of people needing treatment in a legalized environment might well drop. When there's no criminal penalties, there's less incentive to hide use, and friends and family will catch on and can intervene sooner. With the negative criminal conseqences gone, people might also use less drugs to "escape", since their life is less "screwed up".

It's kind of callous to look at it this way, but legalization would push the addict population more twoards the "suburban/wealthy/hollywood" functional addict category. If/when they finaly do hit bottom, it's more of an individual crisis, instead of destroying a whole family with debt or property siezure by the state, or dragging a couple of crime victims with.

[The Rabbi]

It's kind of callous to look at it this way, but legalization would push the addict population more twoards the "suburban/wealthy/hollywood" functional addict category. If/when they finaly do hit bottom, it's more of an individual crisis, instead of destroying a whole family with debt or property siezure by the state, or dragging a couple of crime victims with.

Why in the world do you think this would happen?  Drug use is predominantly the province of the poor and they are far more affected by it.  Legalization would not change that, except to make it worse.  Poor people tend to be less well-educated and less able to focus on consequences of their acts.

[roo_ster]

TR has a good point which I will generalize:  Erosion of morality has is much more damaging to poorer folks than to richer folks.  

This is not an argument in favor of/against the decriminlaization of currently illicit drugs. Those with fewer resources are always going to take it in the face relative to those who have more when difficulties arise.

[AJ Dual]

It's kind of callous to look at it this way, but legalization would push the addict population more twoards the "suburban/wealthy/hollywood" functional addict category. If/when they finaly do hit bottom, it's more of an individual crisis, instead of destroying a whole family with debt or property siezure by the state, or dragging a couple of crime victims with.

Why in the world do you think this would happen?  Drug use is predominantly the province of the poor and they are far more affected by it.  Legalization would not change that, except to make it worse.  Poor people tend to be less well-educated and less able to focus on consequences of their acts.

Because under legalization the poor aren't stealing, robbing, or whoring to get the money for the drugs because they are cheap. They aren't making them in garages with toxic chemicals, growing them in our national parks, and they aren't killing each other over "territory".

They're also not going through the legal wringer over posession or dealing charges, and having what meager existance they have disrupted even further which understandibly might drive them even deeper into addiction as an escape from seemingly insurmountable problems.

And if someone is going to be an addict anyway, a "functional addict" is less of a burden on society than a non-functional one.

And frankly, I don't know for a fact that the poor have a higher rate of drug abuse. All I know is that they have a higer rate of discovered and prosecuted drug abuse&

Oh yes, and cheaper lawyers too.

And to the example of "crack babies", crack itself is an outgrowth of the WOD. Because cocaine is illegal, the sellers were motivated to find a new way to stretch the supply, increase the profit margin, and up the addictivness of cocaine all at once. Drug distribution were up to "legitamate" and regulated commercial interests, crack would never have been invented.

I think the main disconnect between the pro-legalization and anti-legalization sides of the debate is we realize that the situation under legalization would be far, far, from perfect.

However, we believe it would be better.

Something that the WOD does not seem to be able to accomplish.

The basic idea of legalization is societal triage. Instead of heroic efforts on all fronts that ultimately don't provide a cure, and arguably make the problem worse, we get rid of what negative consequences we can.

[cordex]

Senator Lincoln Chafee supports embryonic stem-cell research, gun control, abortion, gay rights, strong environmental protection, increased taxes and opposed the Iraq war.  But he's a Republican.  Just something to think about.

I think BrokenPaw has a pretty good analysis of it.  There are the serious Libertarians who are all for open borders, no governmental regulation on drugs, abortion or guns, and in other ways totally follow the party line, and there are the folks who want vastly less regulation than the Democrats and Republicans want and quite a bit more than the Libertarians would care for.

Rabbi,

What about the john who gets VD and then brings it home to his wife?  Or worse, his pregnant wife?

Yeah, that would be horrible.  Of course, we don't care if some bloke goes out to a bar, gets drunk, takes a random woman with VD to a motel and then brings it home to his pregnant wife.  We just can't have him pay the woman he sleeps with.  

[Tallpine]

"The current thinking is that this includes somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 of the Federal government."

My thinking would be somewhere between 1/64 and 1/32 of the current Federal government.


Personally, I believe in "industry regulation" - the industry formulates standards to adhere to.  Though you might think this won't work (fox watching the henhouse), I believe it would actually work better.  For instance, a restaurant could join (for a fee) a National Restaurant Association that inspects its members for cleanliness standards.  Customers will look for the big sign in the window that says they are a member and comply, or else go somewhere else.  (or else go to the non-member mom-and-pop cafe at their own risk).  If any member has a case of food poisoning, then it reflects on every member restaurant so there is a BIG incentive to do things right.

As it is now, people trust the government inspectors, when those inspectors really don't have a stake in the outcome.  Maybe they get brownie points for writing up "violations" but does that really make the food safer...?


As far as drug users affecting their families .... what about alcoholics?  Maybe we should ban - oh wait, we already tried that  Or how about guys who play golf or fish all weekend and ignore their families - should we ban or regulate golf, fishing, etc ...?

[The Rabbi]

Because under legalization the poor aren't stealing, robbing, or whoring to get the money for the drugs because they are cheap. They aren't making them in garages with toxic chemicals, growing them in our national parks, and they aren't killing each other over "territory".

They're also not going through the legal wringer over posession or dealing charges, and having what meager existance they have disrupted even further which understandibly might drive them even deeper into addiction as an escape from seemingly insurmountable problems.

And if someone is going to be an addict anyway, a "functional addict" is less of a burden on society than a non-functional one.

And frankly, I don't know for a fact that the poor have a higher rate of drug abuse. All I know is that they have a higer rate of discovered and prosecuted drug abuse&

Oh yes, and cheaper lawyers too.

And to the example of "crack babies", crack itself is an outgrowth of the WOD. Because cocaine is illegal, the sellers were motivated to find a new way to stretch the supply, increase the profit margin, and up the addictivness of cocaine all at once. Drug distribution were up to "legitamate" and regulated commercial interests, crack would never have been invented.

I think the main disconnect between the pro-legalization and anti-legalization sides of the debate is we realize that the situation under legalization would be far, far, from perfect.

However, we believe it would be better.

Something that the WOD does not seem to be able to accomplish.

The basic idea of legalization is societal triage. Instead of heroic efforts on all fronts that ultimately don't provide a cure, and arguably make the problem worse, we get rid of what negative consequences we can.

Unless drugs came free people will steal to pay for them.  Alcohol is pretty cheap and people still steal to pay for that.
Your point about not knowing for a fact that middle class people dont have higher incidences of drug abuse is simply an argument from agnosticism.  But in the absence of any counter-evidence on your part I think it is a certainty.  This is bolstered by anecdotal evidence as well as reason.

[BrokenPaw]

Unless drugs came free people will steal to pay for them.  Alcohol is pretty cheap and people still steal to pay for that.

Yes?  And?  The very fact that people will steal for the money to pay for something is not a reason for that thing to be illegal and hence more expensive on the black market.  Electronics, clothing, tobacco, alcohol, drugs; all of these cost something, and for those who would rather steal than work, all of them are a reason to steal.

But with a black market being the only source for a commodity, prices are artificially high, which means that people have to commit more crime in order for the same return.  Make drugs legal, and the price goes down, so the amount of crime necessary to support a thriving drug habit is reduced by an order of magnitude.

Rabbi, you've argued that alcohol's not a drug.  Yet during prohibition, people broke the law enthusiastically in order to obtain it.  And I'd lay many dollars on the table to bet you that the majority of the people going to speakeasies for bootleg liquor weren't the "connoisseurs" you've talked about, who wish to quietly appreciate the merits of a particular liquor's flavor and so forth; I'll bet you that they were going there to drink for the sake of intoxication.  And that makes the alcohol they were after...(wait for it)...a drug.  

Prohibition didn't work for alchol, because the people who wanted their drug-of-choice found ways around the law.  They wanted their drug, and organized crime syndicates created a supply for them.  Prohibition gave organized crime a huge economic base upon which to grow.

Prohibition doesn't work for drugs, because the drug users who want their drugs-of-choice find ways around the law.  They want their drug, and the cartels have created a supply for them.  The War On Some Drugs has given the cartels (and organized crime) a huge economic base upon which to grow.

Explain to me (in small words, please, since this subject appears to be beyond me) how prohibition of alcohol failed spectacularly and created an environment that encouraged crime, yet prohibition of other drugs will not have precisely the same effect?

Thanks.
-BP

[wingnutx]

Lesser of 2 evils.

Like supporting shall-issue CCW licensing, even though Vermont-style is ideal.

[The Rabbi]

I'll give an example of a situation where legalizing something drove illegal suppliers out of business.  And from that you can see why legalizing drugs won't work.
Up until 2 or 3 years ago it was illegal in TN to have a lottery.  Of course the numbers runners were doing a great business, and this supported a lot of drive-in markets, which were frequently fronts for the illegal activity.
When TN approved a state lottery (nothing more than the state stepping in and becoming a numbers runner), it drove the illegal market out of business.  Why?  Because the state offered exactly the same product (better, really, because they could advertise and print pretty tickets), at the same price with better convenience.  And consequently because of that, many people who never played the illegal market were suddenly drawn into the legal market.  Including this poster.
In drugs there already exists a network of importers, wholesalers, and retailers that work 24/7.  The state would have to provide (or allow private enterprise to provide) exactly the same level of price and service as exists already.
If they did that, they would, just like the lottery, attract people who otherwise would never use drugs.  They also would not reap any tax benefit, since taxing the product would make it more expensive vis-a-vis the illegal market.  So you would end up with both more addicts and less revenue.  A lose-lose situation.

[BrokenPaw]

Re: the lottery.

Apples and oranges.  People who play numbers games, especially high-payout games with very low odds (like the lottery) are doing it because they're under the largely mistaken impression that they'll make money out of the deal.  A few people win, and they're publicized as Everyman-Who-Made-It-Big, and that draws in a few more people who are down on their luck who want to be the next big winner.

No one drinks a beer because he thinks if he does it'll make him a millionairre.  No one smokes a cigar or a joint because he thinks it'll make him fantabulously rich.  But that's why people play the lottery.

As for costs related to the legal drug industry:  Much of the cost associated with drugs is there because of the manner in which the drugs have to be transported or made.  Importing drugs is a high-risk endeavor, because large quantities have to be shipped en masse for efficiency's sake (and thus risk being lost all at once in a bust) with all manner of precaution and bribery and what-have-you to keep it secret.  Or, alternatively, shipments can be much smaller to lessen the chance of a big loss, but the need for bribes and so forth are still there, plus the smaller shipments means higher overhead.  Similar analogous costs inhere to the domestic manufacture of drugs like Meth.

I don't know this part for a fact, so please forgive the speculation, but:  Is it safe to assume that the production-only cost for a joint worth of marijuana is roughly equivalent to the production cost of an equivalent amount of tobacco?  Yet a joint costs, what?  How much more does a joint cost than a Marlboro?

Even if you consider that a government-run drug supply would require a similar infrastructure to the one that the cartels already have, the simple act of legalizing the product itself would reduce the costs that the cartels have, and the fact that supply would open up would force prices down.

-BP

[Bogie]

The way I look at it, if you drive a car, you gotta pay for gas and maintenance, and taxes to keep the roads that you'll use nice. Same with anything else. If you smoke weed, you gotta chip in for whatever social consequences (likely very little) which may occur.

[AJ Dual]

How many people fell away from playing numbers because part of the thrill was doing something illicit?

How many people would never start because of that?

Just as with other prohibited items, part of drugs social cachet is their very illicitness.

And besides, it's not a very good analogy, since by creating a state-run lottery, the state of Tennessee started providing a service that was legal and socialy acceptable in many other places around the U.S.

I'd also wager that the drive to acquire drugs to support a chemical dependance habit is a lot stronger than the drive to engage in low stakes - low odds gambling. Just as would be the desire to NOT start.

And while I won't argue that there won't be people who'd try the newly legalized drugs, who might not have before because they were illegal, I'm hard pressed to believe that it would be massive amounts of users who would undermine the "peace diiidend" from legalization.

And then there's the "take it or leave it" factor. There certainly are many, many Americans who've tried pot once or twice, and never formed a habit, much less moved on to other drugs. And in terms of "addictive" narcotics, many more have become addicted to legaly prescribed ones even within "normal" timeframes, and without such things as "doctor shopping", but still manage to quit when the prescription runs out.

This happened to my own wife, post surgery. She became addicted to Oxycontin and Fentanyl. And the latter drug, a synthetic variant of Heroin, is arguably much, much, more potent than anything commonly availible on the street.  What was happening was plainly obvious to both of us. The "problems" above and beyond her surgical pain were clear if we missed getting her a dose.

However, when the time was up and the doctors decided she had recovered, she went through withdrawl, and never sought out another source of Fentanyl, Oxycontin, or any other drugs. And this was full DT's, sweats, shakes, nausea, the whole nine yards.

My own wife's experiences are certainly a limited sample size, but it's my belief that there's a cultural and psycological component to addiction, and with any cultural problem, government solutions are hardly ever effective.

And BTW, by accusing me of "making arguments from agnosticism" and offering no hard numbers, or anythign else beyond "anecdotal evidence and reason"  to support your contentions, aren't you conversely just defining your own positions on drug prohibition as articles of faith?

[Perd Hapley]

What about the john who gets VD and then brings it home to his wife?  Or worse, his pregnant wife?

We really can't control all the ways in which spouses harm one another with poor choices.  Granted, a woman can't know everything about her intended, but she took the chance when she married the schlub.

[Perd Hapley]

 Of course, we don't care if some bloke goes out to a bar, gets drunk, takes a random woman with VD to a motel and then brings it home to his pregnant wife.  We just can't have him pay the woman he sleeps with.  

Yeah.  I can see legalizing prostitution.  I can also see outlawing sex outside of marriage.  It should be one or the other.

[Perd Hapley]

I must say that drug use, alcohol, divorce, high taxes on the wealthy, and just about everything else is harder on the poor.  Such is the nature of poverty.

I should also say that I am a small-l libertarian, but I break with the big-L party on abortion and drug laws, rather than on extremely small government.

[The Rabbi]

Re: the lottery.

Apples and oranges.  People who play numbers games, especially high-payout games with very low odds (like the lottery) are doing it because they're under the largely mistaken impression that they'll make money out of the deal.  A few people win, and they're publicized as Everyman-Who-Made-It-Big, and that draws in a few more people who are down on their luck who want to be the next big winner.

No one drinks a beer because he thinks if he does it'll make him a millionairre.  No one smokes a cigar or a joint because he thinks it'll make him fantabulously rich.  But that's why people play the lottery.

As for costs related to the legal drug industry:  Much of the cost associated with drugs is there because of the manner in which the drugs have to be transported or made.  Importing drugs is a high-risk endeavor, because large quantities have to be shipped en masse for efficiency's sake (and thus risk being lost all at once in a bust) with all manner of precaution and bribery and what-have-you to keep it secret.  Or, alternatively, shipments can be much smaller to lessen the chance of a big loss, but the need for bribes and so forth are still there, plus the smaller shipments means higher overhead.  Similar analogous costs inhere to the domestic manufacture of drugs like Meth.

I don't know this part for a fact, so please forgive the speculation, but:  Is it safe to assume that the production-only cost for a joint worth of marijuana is roughly equivalent to the production cost of an equivalent amount of tobacco?  Yet a joint costs, what?  How much more does a joint cost than a Marlboro?

Even if you consider that a government-run drug supply would require a similar infrastructure to the one that the cartels already have, the simple act of legalizing the product itself would reduce the costs that the cartels have, and the fact that supply would open up would force prices down.

-BP

The economic dynamics of the lottery and drug use would be very similar.  I don't see any substantive differences.
An additional cost is the liability that companies would be assuming.  Who wants to be the manufacturer of an addictive product and face lawsuits from relatives claiming their faulty product caused the death/destruction of their loved one?  I dont want to argue the case here, but we all know that companies would face that issue.  As it is, drug dealers don't deal with lawsuits, reducing their costs significantly.
as for the cost to manufacture MJ, it is minimal.  And the barriers to entry are minimal.  The biggest one is in fact the risk of getting caught.  Take that away every Tom Dick and Harry with some soil and a grow lamp will be growing his own and/or selling it on the cheap.  Maybe people think that isn't a bad thing.

[CAnnoneer]

1) The freedom argument is people should be allowed to damage themselves because it is their right.
2) The socialist argument is people should not be allowed to damage themselves because society has a responsibility to protect its members from themselves.
3) The fiscal argument is that personal failures incur colateral damage.

When you view your positions w.r.t. the above, you can better see where you stand. You are entitled to your opinion, but be certain you understand the basis for it.

Since I am the anti-socialist, I am only concerned with freedom and limited colateral damage. Legalization is freedom. Colateral damage remains to be determined, and strongly depends on the level of socialism.

My guess is that legalization will initially carry certain costs, which will be below the current 18 billion expanded annually on WOD. Moreover, the costs will shrink over time, as old drug addicts O.D. on cheap drugs, while young drug addicts go through the burnout cycle much faster in an environment of proliferation. Putting people in a Darwinian situation will weed out the weak nicely. The result will be a society of stronger, more independent, freer people. I am all for that.

By contrast, what we have right now is a nannystate society which teaches people that it is okay to be weak and worthless; moreover, it saves the weak from themselves, thereby allowing them to proliferate at the expense of the strong. A more suicidal social policy is hardly imaginable. In the end, going against nature always leads to perdition.

[BrokenPaw]

Some of the arguments against legalization are equivalent to the arguments for helmet laws:  

"People who don't wear helmets place an undue risk upon the rest of us because if they splutch themselves and enter a persistent vegetative state, we all have to pay because of the cost of their medical care."

"People who use drugs place an undue risk upon the rest of us because if they end up burned out, unproductive members of society, we all have to pay because of the cost of their medical care and welfare and what-have-you."

The solution to both of these problems is the same; rather than preventing people from having free choice about what they do to themselves, remove the nanny-state programs that prevent them from suffering the consequences for their actions.

In CAnnoneer's terms, I favor the freedom argument, and I concur with him that the fiscal argument relies largely upon how many socialist programs are in place.  Remove the programs, and the fiscal argument loses strength.

For the record, I'm for legalization, but I've don't do and have never done illegal drugs of any kind.  So I don't have a dog in the fight, except from the standpoint of reducing overall government interference and regulation and taxation and socialist nannystatism.

-BP

[Perd Hapley]

CAnnoneer and BP, I tend to agree with that line of argument.

[BrokenPaw]

CAnnoneer and BP, I tend to agree with that line of argument.

Wow, this is cool!  I imagine Satan's all pissed-off, though; with us agreeing twice in a fortnight, he's probably having to break out the snow-shovel.  

-BP

Oh, and I have to point out, fistful, when you initially posted this thread, I thought your thread title mean that you thought that Libertarians should the taxed and regulated.