Who created the problem of new drugs?

New drugs. The new substances are wrinkling on the forehead of many politicians and drug experts. Maybe rightly so, but banning them won't solve anything. On the contrary - the ban on other drugs was at the beginning of everything.

Amsterdam shop (source: Novinky.cz)
Amsterdam shop (source: Novinky.cz)

Sometimes I am surprised by the way some Czech politicians think (sometimes?), police officers (sometimes?) and various anti-drug experts (sometimes?).

Well, just think - they appeared so-called. "Amsterdam shops," shops where new, synthetic substances are sold as various "gift items" with which people can substitute for the use of today's illicit drugs.

Instead of really tackling the drug problem, pours gasoline into the fire.

New synthetic drugs are potentially more dangerous substancesthan "classic" drugs. We don't know them, they're new substances. Who needs to produce and sell something like this? Where did the motive for the development of new drugs originate?

The answer is simple - in the UN Declaration on the International Fight against Drugs, which has become a cornerstone of the elite drug policy of most countries in the world. Why elitist?

The "banned drug" label was de facto awarded to a few selected substances. This designation was not given to alcohol or tobacco products (ie tobacco), sugar, chocolate and many other de facto drugs.

These "unlabeled" drugs are at a severe disadvantage compared to illicit drugs.

The ban on some drugs has led to one thing - an increase in the number of addicts and an increase in drug prices. The risk of trading and transaction costs have increased. Entry into the sector is very limited and difficult due to the ban. There is no competition in drug sales. Drug cartels have emerged.

The word "cartel" captures the essence of the problem - a cartel is an association of traders who have decided to cooperate and set prices on the market (to their advantage) - that is, to increase prices and thus achieve economic profit.

But, unfortunately, in the free market, the cartel has no chance of surviving in the long run - simply because the law of supply and demand applies: at artificially high prices, it always pays to jerk someone from the cartel and set a real lower price (lower nominal price or higher quality for the same nominal price) and thus gain more customers.

The only cartel that has a chance to survive is a cartel sanctified and protected by law. That is why the banking cartel has been operating for many years without any major shock (jerking a larger bank). This is exactly the association with the drug cartel.

Due to the higher risk and the difficulty of entering the industry, only those sellers who have been there for a long time are on the drug market. New competition is finding it difficult for the industry. The system of competition does not work, so there are increased prices, higher profits of sellers.

Dear politicians, go to the parents whose children have died from drug use and explain to them that thanks to your ban, the leaders of drug cartels are building golden palaces paid for by the death of their children.

What about the buyer?

Buyers have a classic problem of moral hazard - they do not fully bear the cost of their actions. They enjoy the positive effects of drugs, but we pay for any treatment. I am not saying that solidarity is bad. I believe that there would be a large number of people (or companies) who would contribute to various "charitable" treatments for addicts. After all, there would certainly be a lot of drug producers within the framework of "social responsibility" programs, who would also be among these donors.

Addicted users are the worst advertising for drug dealers.

We see the second effect of moral hazard in parents. Parents often do not have information, do not care, do not see any symptoms of addiction. They do not even look for information, they do not take care of their children, because they throw possible problems at school (because today's school is a state institution that educates, does not teach) and the state (which finances treatment). There is always someone "third" who can be held accountable.

Today, parents are usually more likely to notice that their child is smoking cigarettes than fetishizing. It is sad.

I am not saying that legalizing drugs would make addicts disappear. But it would be they who would primarily bear the cost of drug use.

Many of you may think that these addicted users would walk the streets and steal. That is, of course, quite possible, however, it would not be to a greater extent than today. For several reasons:

  1. Drugs would actually be cheaper. Competition in the industry leads to lower nominal prices, increased real quality and, in the long run, both.
    We immediately have a second consequence - quality "pure" drugs not mixed with plaster (for example) are less harmful to health. The state drug ban is responsible for many dead users. At the same time, the most inexperienced are those who try the drug once in a lifetime - they do not have their "known sellers", so they are more likely to buy a low-quality drug, which can cost them their lives.. The state is responsible for hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of dead people. Here it is no longer a question of economics, but a question of morality: is this moral?
  2. There would be fewer addicts - as mentioned above, drugs would be of better quality, less dangerous. Drug users would also bear the cost of their actions - there might be more "single users" but fewer addicts.
  3. People should have relevant information. For example, schools would not provide "drug education," but "drug education." The current "drug education," usually state-funded, is usually of such quality that makes drugs quite popular.
  4. Parents would take more care of their children, because in their "immaturity" they would bear the costs of their children's actions.

So the situation would certainly not be worse than it is today. However, compared to today, it would cost us much less money.

By the way, for example in the case of alcohol (despite a high degree of state regulation, where the state often owns most of the profits from sales), the free market has led to research to bring alcohol from which it is quickly sober and after which there is simply not (and cannot be) a hangover ( which, however, is not unrealistic even with the current offer).

And what about the new drugs?

So why are the "new drugs" being created? We actually answered right at the beginning - due to the higher price of old drugs. Thanks to the ban, the offer for new drugs is almost preserved, but high price, which brings obviously high economic profit, attracts other bidders to offer a cheaper alternative, a suitable substitute for conventional drugs. It doesn't have to be better, demand is also provided by the state thanks to the ban on conventional drugs, public education and socialist health care (the effect of moral hazard).

The artificially preserved higher price of conventional drugs leads to an artificially higher price even for artificial, still legal "new drugs" - despite this lower price, bidders can achieve higher profits than on the free market.

However, as long as new drugs are over-the-counter and classic 'illegal', together with the combination of effects on drug demand, there can be nothing more than having a problem with the growing number of addicts we will have to treat and who will die as a result of their addiction.

We will also have to face an increasing number of people asking, "and why should we pay for their treatment?" Their question is (and will be) justified. Why does he "have to" pay for someone else, a stranger to them, to destroy his life? Because solidarity? AND solidarity = "must"?

However, another ban on "new drugs" is not the answer. If we ban 'new drugs', we will not move anywhere. New, more dangerous synthetic drugs are invented. We will bring profit to the new drug bosses. We will let a lot of other innocent people die in drug cartel wars (and only because they just accidentally get in the way of bullets).

Even some already banned drugs were once created precisely because of the ban on other drugs. It is still the same, all the time and we are not moving anywhere, on the contrary - the situation is constantly deteriorating.

Many people's fear of whether or not drugs were sold in front of schools to young children is absurd - it is already commonplace today. The situation is as bad as with alcohol prohibition. Drug prohibition cannot bring better results.

The solution is legalization

The only solution is to legalize drugs, lift their ban. Only by legalizing drugs can we get their sale under control, only by legalizing drugs will we get rid of the wars of drug cartels and many dead innocents, only by legalizing drugs can we prevent an almost certain increase in addicted users today.

If we do not legalize drugs, let's make the whole situation ad absurdum: let's forbid people to overeat (become addicted to food), let them forbid sitting for hours at the PC (become addicted to information technology), let's set the ration system for chocolate or sugar, ban alcohol and tobacco products (including use for treatment).

Then perhaps many opponents of legalization will open their eyes.

Milton Friedman

Here is the opinion of Milton Friedman, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics. In English with Slovak subtitles.


  1. Lack: I agree with those phrases. The Liberals take that dogmatism as a bad end. But they are locked in their bubbles, if you want to tell people something, then you can't get into them so badly, not on "their" server, which they slowly take as a fortress. Sure, it's weird, but holt people are territorial and irrational. You would be able to understand it from completely free individuals.

    Drugs are not here because they are cheap or expensive. (By the way, you are not right about the price, in Latin America, where coca is semi-legal, cocaine is really a buck and is an expensive extract).

    I consume drugs for completely different reasons, and if someone happens to reduce drug consumption, they have to go for reasons why people are lean, self-destructive, or can't stand the world. I'm talking about heroin / meth / marijuana / booze. Not about psychedelics.

  2. @lack - You're not just saying that the number of users will increase. You also claim that this increase is negative, that it is bad for society. And we contradict that (among other things). The change in the number of drug users alone is neither positive nor negative.

  3. re lack: the article mainly points to the fact that banning 'natural' or 'traditional' drugs puts enormous pressure on innovation in this somewhat perverted field of chemistry, and it is clear that, thanks to today's level of science, states with their bureaucracy and corrupt police CANNOT WIN ( definitely not repression, maybe more prevention, education - it affects the longer side of the rope - demand)

  4. You will not get anything under control to legalize. You will only stop punishing legalization, you will not start controlling it. Drugs will be expensive goods (see China or a year ago even in legal Poland) so they will always be in the eye of the interest of criminal groups (they will not sell carrots, but the goods you have to have and do anything for it). And the growth of the user is simply a fact (again, see China and Poland). As for the reason, it is not necessary to analyze them at all. Because the article takes legalization and the dot as a whole, it does not discuss specific reasons, other thousands of conditions, etc.

    As for jajinkovani, I'm sorry, but if someone answers the factual objection to nonsense in the article and I want to and dot, and if you're dealing with facts, you're forcing me to do something and it's just a laugh for the discussion.

  5. lack of fear, I'm afraid you don't understand and don't want to understand libertarians, so you use your stupid word "egg yolk". You attack people who have lib. opinions and discuss on lib. server. Why? I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it is not easy in today's society to study, have and defend such opinions - try to do so.

    "Only by legalizing drugs can we get their sale under control, only by legalizing drugs will we get rid of drug cartel wars and many dead innocents, only by legalizing drugs will we prevent an almost certain increase in addicted users today."

    So far, you have vehemently contradicted only the last sentence. This is based on the example of China, where there has been an increase in addicts after legalization, but you forgot to write down the reasons for the demand for drugs there. You do not want to claim that the only reason for their use was their availability.

  6. Otherwise, so that it is no longer necessary to return to it. Prohibition as an example proves absolutely nothing. And for a simple reason that is clear to anyone with the ability to think logically. There is only one legalization, there can be hundreds of forms of prohibition.

  7. Leech, especially I don't care about soldering. If you want to answer everything by soldering, you don't even need a discussion. I just want it and that's it, the only argument you can throw.

    If you do not know the meaning of the word eggs, do not use it. Then you look like a fool. I don't write anywhere that something is supposed to be just because I want it. I do not emphasize myself anywhere because my person is irrelevant in the light of the facts. I simply recall the fact as it is and has been in different countries. Do you understand ? Or will you use a term you don't understand again? And the rest of what you're writing is a hundred times nonsense. We have concrete examples, both historical and modern, which refute the article's claims about the effects of legalization. And the dot. There is no way to disprove it, nor to divert the call.

    Stronger drugs will never be less addictive. Legalization has always increased the number of drug addicts and related pathologies. These are simple facts.

  8. re lack: realize what is and what is not visible… when you remove drugs, it does not mean that the experimenters will not be removed from the world otherwise, there is no police force (maybe the Gestapo had enough power to do so) to watch who behaves properly and who is on misguided - it is the responsibility of one's own, parents, friends, society
    today's situation is far too similar to prohibition, because the police do not even turn to big fish - rare, so overpriced drugs give them too much power for the police to afford to touch them

  9. re lack:
    In the meantime, you are just beating your prejudices here, first find out something about biochemistry, and if you consider today's new drugs to be healthier than the classic ones, then Amen is with you

    you also forget about the progress of modern medicine - many people used to (abuse) opiates because it was the only help against pain, in contrast, today we have mostly experimenters and "bored" youth - but this is a social and moral problem, not primarily criminal (it is just a consequence) even if you beautifully erase all drugs, these irresponsible (and the state only increases the irresponsibility) idiots need to sniff glue or play Russian roulette, the form of self-destruction does not matter so much…

    your problem is that you can't give people freedom even at the cost of harming you, you have a fixed need to "do" good (but you support evil, because this thinking promotes irresponsibility and moral hazard)

  10. lack of libertarian A - self, personal freedom, Laissez Faire - do you use your "egg-eating", do you have a word for libertarian B - responsibility, respect for others, tolerance?

  11. You can easily put jajinkuj waffles and hallelujah.

    The article describes some alleged effects of a policy, and I present facts that show that this is nonsense. Starting with a "healthier stronger herak" and the growing number of fetac endings.

    Do you understand ? Or will you mumble something about what you want and what I'm supposed to take from someone? Farting to someone, they only show factual nonsense. And now get interesting.

  12. @lack - we'll all die of something once, why couldn't it be drugs? Are you really also arrogant and arrogant that you want to tell others how to live and what to die for? No one has asked you and those like you for any protection, where do you take the audacity to tell others what they can or cannot do with their lives? We have already rejected the slave society, people and their lives do not belong to you, don't worry about them.

  13. 3,14ranha
    Of course, it is the evil repression that has developed heroin, opium and other narcotics that completely destroy the human body. Let the liberals calm down for this, everyone is laughing.

    The synthetic substances being solved in our country originated in Poland, they were fully legal for a long time and what was the effect? Their quantity began to increase constantly (legally production a few crowns, sales a few hundred crowns on the topic of how these goods will be legally cheap) and…. people began to die. For a fully legal product, only then came the reaction of the Polish government, which stopped it after a long legal period. But you fart know, you deal with ideologies, not facts.

    China was not enough for you, Poland probably wasn't enough either, because your infallible guru beat nonsense in your head.

  14. re: lack, but spherical, you don't discuss reality at all… you don't even read the article - it's repression that encourages the development of dangerous synthetic drugs and it's repression (and nothing else - alcohol and cigarettes are as addictive as opiates! but only opiates are demonized by some and criminalized)
    which encourages the emergence of the black market and helps finance the underworld
    (that's why the connection with Prohibition - but you know the ball about it, so you're like a jammed record, you just don't enforce your judgment and "don't blame", you're just the mouthpiece of the official politically correct version)

    Do you understand that thanks to the possibilities of modern chemistry, this will not end as long as people demand drugs?
    (and this is not primarily related to availability, but to the mental / moral state of society - see Russia today and China during the opium wars, even traditional drugs can kill entire nations)
    and as long as the state and the mafia parasitize each other?

  15. Otherwise, a message to slightly retarded eggs, if the article does not just deal with screams and it will be as I and I and I want, but discuss the factual effects, so do not be surprised that these factual effects are analyzed and compared with reality.

    But I understand that, the reality of the theory of eggs does not confirm (even the nonsense that their application would bring directly ridicule), so it is necessary to focus only on eggs.

  16. double on your back, hang out, because everyone who has a different opinion than liberal comrades is kind of weird. and especially believe this.

    "There would be fewer addicts - as mentioned above, drugs would be better, less dangerous. Drug users would also bear the cost of their actions - there might be more "one-off users" but less addicts. "

    The more heroin it produces in other countries, the more I consider this to be a genius goal 🙂

  17. re Sonny Ortega: so it is enough to read the article under which we discuss i (or even just the title) and what we debated here belongs… that Lack is a special kind of person I have already convinced of that, so no
    PS: jájínkování I would also be interested in what is 😀

  18. @ Roman, Catmouse, Piranha:

    What the hell are you talking about? What China, what American prohibition? This is a discussion about the violation or non-violation of property rights, about freedom, not about whether more people are being fed or less! This discussion is about Lack wanting to hurt other people, and we have to explain to a four-year-old boy that he can't take other children's toys because he's just rude.


    What does soldering mean? If someone beats me and robs me and I say I don't like it and I don't agree with it, is it soldering?

  19. Statistics only say that at that time it was this and that. Its informative value depends on the interpretation of this data and the interpretation is based on some philosophy. This means that the interpretation is to some extent distorted in advance.
    Otherwise, thanks for the feedback.

  20. drug consumption depends not only on supply but also on demand… (there is a need to step up efforts, otherwise more and more new drugs will appear again and there is an article about that !!!!!!!) and there really is no difference between a life ruined by heroin and alcohol (Except that state repression makes a drug addict a criminal, while an alcoholic is at best a troublemaker)

  21. Let Jajinkove give me eggs, so only for factual things.
    production is strongly connected with consumption. with hard drugs you probably don't see them anymore because it would be after you. therefore, the drastic increase in production and imports after legalization proves the drastic increase in users.
    Nobody prevents you from trying that heroin. There are a lot of people in the clinics that she just tried. Especially in drugs, the dependence is not caused by plaster and editorial staff. So try to logically assess what happens when drugs become stronger without the editor, they cause less or more dependence?

    Statistics are not here to decide the philosophical approaches of individual people. However, statistics provide an opportunity to verify the outputs of philosophy where they are trying to make factual claims about development.

    The numbers show that without the ban, the situation would be much worse. When you move on to Prohibition, I can pass even more, what do you think, if I allow theft, their number will decrease or increase? Demagogy? Probably similar to the constant efforts to mix the drugs taken in the article as a whole, even those extremely hard with alcohol. In addition, prohibition in various forms continues to exist and there are various experiences.

  22. to lack
    Look at prohibition and its consequences you did not answer, or am I wrong?
    As for the ban, there are several things. There is no doubt that you can find a certain consequence in reducing overall sales (although how to measure something that is illegal?), Which may be related to the amount of penalties. Another thing, however, is that demand and supply will move to a different level (the customer is willing to pay significantly more and raise money in any way, for suppliers, a significantly higher profit will be a sufficient reward for increased risk). And I'm not talking about links to politicians, the police, etc.
    I just understand that the vast majority of people think that without the ban, the situation would be even worse - which also convinces politicians (why maybe). Maybe so - there might be more junkies (I doubt it enough, but so be it) but what will happen to the whole illegal system today, who will be threatened by "gangs", what will the mobsters live on?
    And the Netherlands - I don't know the numbers and can it be compared objectively at all?

  23. Lack: Mr. theorist. Keep your egg dictionary. Make up your theories and explanations and fuck off forbid others to order, direct and control their lives. No one really asks for that.

  24. lack: I'm not so interested in this data as why you think you have the right to decide what others do with their lives? If drug use increases 10fold, where do you take the right to restrict it to those people?

  25. Ok, did you state the figures from 19th century China, and do you think the claims from the article are completely refuted?
    That sounds a little short to me. You are only proving that the bans have reduced production. But I wonder if there are other, cheaper and more effective ways than the war on drugs. Whether I have to pay for treatment to people I don't know who have caused their own suffering. Whether I can tell someone how to treat myself, etc. I just think the question is wide enough to be swept off the table with one statistic.
    And as for heroin, others say it's a little different with the addiction.

  26. Otherwise, I recommend all local theorists to do a one-time experimental test with pure heroin 🙂 Maybe after a few years of treatment you will realize (even if the file is not) that the drug is not just some nice grass or a doll. This is because there are drugs that can create addiction in the first experiment, so of course the best way to fight such drugs is to reduce their price and increase their strength (poor quality drug is crap, but at the same time has fewer substances causing addiction).

  27. Roman
    aha well, so you can't specifically question it. good. but then you don't have to take the call anymore and give, because whatever you object to you you can always say exactly the same without a single argument>

    very weak-minded childish trick. when at a specific egg yolk I say that it is a yoghurt, so you shouted like in kindergarten, me and a friend aren't yawning. At the same time, I didn't show up about what I and I and I did anywhere. so please be aware that you are no longer in kindergarten.

    otherwise the rest, with the exception of the last paragraph, is irrelevant to what I objected. and the last paragraph explains nothing, either the author's theory of legalization holds true or not. it was not added in which country it can apply, what where or should not be the law, etc. This is the real disadvantage of such ideological approaches to reality as this article, that the facts are able to crush them to the millimeter and the supporter of ideology then only remains distracting the topic from the conversation, or trying to explain that something completely different was actually claimed.

  28. re roman: thank you for the recording of the smash, russia is an ideal example of a dysfunctional society with a huge demand for all drugs (alcohol is just like a traditional drug more visible), while some of the measures there are draconian

  29. re lack: what about the American Prohibition episode? here do you explain how? little repression?

    I disagree with the author in the degree of legalization, decriminalization, but you are more likely here (it is the case that we project our mistakes into others)
    because the rise of new synthetic drugs is clearly tied to the activities of the state, this can only be denied by a fool

    PS: I definitely support active prevention among young people (sports, youth organizations, culture) and it is evident that some individuals have responsibilities limited by age or (non) education (I would be there for some repression, I would not mind fighting advertising)

    however, your example with China could be an example of the fact that drugs abound mainly in dysfunctional societies (there I would surpass the efforts of all "benefactors" - what is the difference between a life destroyed by drugs, gambling, an excess of surfing on the net?)

  30. @lack
    The question is, what do such statistics actually say? For example, under the Comanches, unemployment was statistically zero.
    How much has availability changed in England?
    In most countries, alcohol is limited by a minimum age. Otherwise, it is relatively well accessible. Perhaps, apart from Russia, it does not cause any major problems. But Russia is a specific case.

  31. And so you are not able to question the numbers or you are not able to supply anything else, so they are wrong simply from the principle.

    I presented a clear proof of the article from the article, which refutes it, because the statements in the article are universal and not saying, and then this and that there and if we meet this or that condition, it will work, etc. Just legalization and it's great.

    But the fact is that I didn't have to present anything, it was just enough to declare in the discussion that these are indelible nonsense in the article, not to argue in fact and it would be enough for you, right?

    If you use logical thinking, you will clearly realize that the numbers may differ in some details according to the source (I have several), but the general trend will be true (after the legalization will increase drastically), but that it does not suit you so try without proof to question something or to take the call elsewhere.

  32. To lack:
    Kosik has already written it - the question of how the numbers are true (that you read them somewhere and found them does not confirm their veracity at all). Moreover, what did anyone count on them? Such statistics are…
    But what is quite provable is the prohibition in the USA. So tell us how "paradise on earth" came about. What was the crime before and after and the price for alcohol before and after, etc.
    It's like beer today if it cost 3 CZK instead of 20 CZK, would I like to get 6x-7x more?

  33. otherwise, the availability of alcohol in England has decreased quite compared to the previous century, but only marginally. certainly if they poured in the name of freedom everywhere and everything and almost assignment, they would certainly be better off with alcohol than today 🙂

  34. The statistics on production and imports are constantly growing after legalization - some companies, for example, know how much they added that :). and is enough to refute the claim from the article.

  35. As for China, the numbers may be correct, but the question is how telling they are. China was a backward authoritarian country in the 19th century with a huge level of corruption, illiteracy, etc. I quite doubt that the same would happen in 21st century Europe. I also quite doubt that the 14 miles. people were wrecked unable to function. It was more a matter of losing capital abroad in this way. Hard alcohol was also said to be a big problem in England in the 18th century, and it cannot be said that today it would somehow extremely threaten the functioning of society, even if people get drunk enough.
    Drug use will simply always exist, which means that under the current repressive approach, a certain number of people will always be at least potentially criminalized. That, I think, is not entirely good. I'm also not sure how accurate the current (and historical) statistics are. I think a lot of people use drugs and can work quite normally. Such people do not get much into the statistics.
    In my opinion, the gradual legalization and demonization of drugs would really bring better control over the whole problem.

  36. pps
    The largest producer today, where it is also illegal, is able to create without legalization only about 7 thousand tons of opium. It is absolutely clear that as they claim in the article after legalization, nothing would get worse :)))

    eeee will anyone argue with the facts? I'm afraid not, only Paroubkovske jajajajajajajajaja and who doesn't agree with it so burta and parek and is a communist socialist and maybe even a mason

  37. Although I know that the comrades of Liberals are now interested only in jajinkování and possibly despised by anyone who does not act

    until 1858, there was no opium production in cinema, only imports. in 1858, after the lost wars, China was forced to legalize opium. imports began to increase to their peak in 1879 when it was 6700 tons. at the same time, domestic production was created, which also grew and in 1906 reached a yield of 35 thousand tons. It can be seen from legalization and the free market solved everything to satisfaction…. opium producer 🙂
    ps drug addiction involved some 13,5 million people today in much larger rates, the number is estimated at about 4 million

  38. 12. typical arrogant reaction of Paroubkov eggs ¨

    I understand that the simple fact, such as the growth of drug addiction in the act after the legalization of opium after the lost wars, which clearly refutes the thesis from the article, walled you up, so you only have eggs.

  39. 1) By what right does someone stop me from swallowing something or do they inject something into a vein? To MY vein! Am I state property? No MY body belongs to ME!

    2) On the other hand, by what right does someone force others to bear the costs of my irresponsibility and thus pay, for example, my treatment ???


    I think LACK is an jeliman. And I think that's a diagnosis. LACK should be forbidden to read his Haló newspaper, snoop on Nova, drink beer and bask in the belly. It's harmful to him, so we have the right to forbid him, right? And we'll take some money from Jard and Frant and pay LACK for treatment for TV Nova addiction and belly. We have a right to that, don't we?

  40. Following the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, opium production in that country has been massively eliminated. The money from these stores was spinning (or rather laundered) through Wall Street. Nearly $ 1 trillion, which soon became significantly missing. However, after the entry of American and other troops into Afghanistan, everything began to "get in order" and current production increased above the previous level.

    Drug cartels are, in fact, groups that are not just those who produce and distribute drugs. They also include states that, under the guise of protection against drugs, have in fact taken over a monopoly on their production and especially trade, and thus over their price.

    Just as the state's monopoly on money and interest rates is created, so the state's monopoly on the "fight" against drugs is a source of additional revenue for the state, or the property owners behind all these cartels. The same was true during the time of alcohol prohibition in the USA.

    The rest see 7. Chhoronzon. There is nothing to add.

  41. to Lafi: total agreement. Drug prohibition is the worst way to deal with drug problems.

    One of the biggest crimes of the state is a significant reduction in personal responsibility. Everyone should bear the consequences of their decisions and not socialize them through state redistribution. When a drug addict loses his health, we all pay for it, when he doesn't have a job, we all contribute to him, etc., etc.

  42. Choronzon, if you exist somewhere alone in a vacuum, I may be interested in your eggs. Today I am just funny.

  43. It seems after a long time that the author thinks about drugs similarly to me. I have almost begun to doubt those totalitarian answers to questions about drugs.

    I recently wrote a few lines on a similar topic and in the update of the article dared to refer to yours. Maybe it's okay. If you are interested, you can find it here: http://lafiho.blog.cz/1104/valka-proti-drogam The comments below it are really interesting 🙂

  44. Lack: I buy, make, and occasionally use drugs, and I really like the clever people of yours who defend their bans. Who are you to tell me how I can handle my body? Did I ask you for advice?
    And that argument anti adqitatum is really amazing. Drug bans and combats have always been = okay. Alcohol has always been allowed = okay.

    Especially the bite to realize that the basis is a free person who decides for himself. He either wants or doesn't want to enjoy something. You see yourself as an anteater and dictator who would like to slap others when they do something they don't like. Shame on you moralist.

  45. find out how the number of opium users in China increased after its leg .. legalization. You can also find the information online and you will be shocked at how many people have become addicts, today's situation is a complete paradise. just as you can find out from information about opium that its delegation has much older roots than any UN. why if the legality of drugs is so great and the market solves everything?

  46. to lack: These are strong claims. Wouldn't there be any evidence? Because I don't believe anything anymore. Especially to someone who brags about the "nonsense of ultraliberal"

    The drug sector is incredibly influenced by propaganda to justify the prohibition that you really don't know what to believe…

  47. ps
    one more fact - the fight against drugs is not just a matter of recent times. it is a matter that has appeared at any time when the influx of legal expensive (expensive not because it is illegal but because it is dependent on) narcotics has caused a huge economic and social problem (for example, the United States in the 19th century). and always after the delegation, there was a huge drop in drug addiction.

  48. And otherwise a little fact, drug addiction has been a huge problem in the past in times of legality (opium dens have been crammed into clients) and with the growing availability of drugs, the problem has begun to increase. The apartment was all legal. Today, drug addiction is a significantly lower problem (involving fewer people) than it was in legal times. In countries where some substances have been legalized, this has not led to a decline but to an increase in the use of these.

    And these simple facts are clearly refuted by obsolete and based only on the utopian economic model of the theory of fanatical liberals copied into the article.

  49. it's fun to see a liberal brain deficiency in a liberal. whatever you publish are the phrases of a few people. there is not a bit of an original thought, only the nonsense of ultraliberal.

    it is quite reminiscent of the communist language of recent years, who proved the only argument based on what the infallible guru Marx Lenin and in one period Stalin wrote.

  50. Thanks for the article and for the video. There is not much that can be delivered.

Comments are off.