Comments | rustycoon: Against The Supply Side. Congress: 0, Globalization: 27

rustycoon

Against The Supply Side. Congress: 0, Globalization: 27

Jan 31, 2008 10:58

The War on Drugs was designed to cut the drug flow into the nation, essentially to starve junkies of their drugs and force the nation to go cold turkey. Any rehab clinician can tell you what the success and relapse rates are for this manner of treatment, but Congress is the last group of people on earth who'd listen to people who know what they're ( Read more... )

economics, maine state law, poker, politics, wire act, uigea, bonehead '08

Comments 5

maniakes January 31 2008, 16:52:22 UTC

Restricting supply of bad things does make a difference on the margins. Alcohol prohibition, for example, did cut alcohol consumption in the US by over 2/3.

The problem is that in order to eliminate a bad thing by restricting supply, you need to either completely destroy the supply, or you need to drive the cost up so high that it's beyond every potential buyer's means (at least get the number of buyers too low to sustain a market). For most bad things, this is prohibitively expensive, both in terms of enforcement cost and collateral damage.

That which you cannot enforce, do not command. rustycoon January 31 2008, 19:08:42 UTC

If something was bad enough to warrant its elimination (which the "100% Bad" theory assumes of drugs, alcohol, and poker) it makes sense that it would be sufficiently possible to convince the population of this and achieve victory.

Whenever you run into a problem that cannot be eliminated, it should prompt the question, "Is this really worth eliminating."

But this is a separate issue. I happen to belong to that diminutive group of people who believe that the gov't shouldn't be getting involved in defining sin except where strictly required to preserve the state. I have not seen an argument against drugs, gambling, sex, alcohol, teaching evolution in schools, teaching the proper use and actual efficacy of contraceptives, and driving an SUV that convincingly links these behaviors to collapse of the state.

I have seen arguments that try, but are less logical than average LJ entry about [insert political issue here].

Re: That which you cannot enforce, do not command. maniakes January 31 2008, 19:49:33 UTC

I agree with your conclusion, but not your argument.

If something was bad enough to warrant its elimination (which the "100% Bad" theory assumes of drugs, alcohol, and poker) it makes sense that it would be sufficiently possible to convince the population of this and achieve victory.Murder is bad enough to warrant its elimination. So is theft. Would it be sufficiently possible to convince the population of this and achieve victory ( ... )

Re: That which you cannot enforce, do not command. rustycoon February 2 2008, 00:32:10 UTC

Murder and theft are enforced against to a degree that suggests elimination is the objective. Gambling, drugs, and speeding are not enforced against using effective means.

My point wasn't that the inability to eliminate crime makes crime good, it was that if you're not even going to take enforcement seriously (and supply-side attacks dont') then why bother in the first place?

Thread 5