[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(1) to make it impossible for a dealer/pusher to earn a profit on it, thereby destroying their financial incentive to spread the drug.

(2) to reduce the harm/risk to the user

(3) to reduce the harm/risk to the general population


[/ QUOTE ]

Couldnt you also do this by making crystal meth illegal and assigning law enforcement agents to track down producers and dealers of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, you can't.

Restricting the supply drives up the price and hence the profit. Dealers are making FAR more under prohibition than they would be if the state came in to undercut them and put them out of business (in which case, they'd make ZERO).

The trade is currently driven underground and the product is unregulated, which also exposes all involved to both physical and medical risks which are preventable -- even allowing for the harm done by illicit substances themselves. It also puts police and the community at far greater risk than would otherwise be the case.

Lastly, by putting drug use into regulated and legal situations, better contact between abusers and the medical community could be created, which would be a major public health benefit. By eliminating black market pricing, property crime would also be GREATLY reduced.

Think about it. This is all simply common sense stuff, once you get beyond the drug war rhetoric.


q/q