tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post4471429352421104674..comments2023-09-20T11:15:28.673+01:00Comments on Transform Drug Policy Foundation Blog: Ethan Nadelmann's testimony to Congress hearings on the War on Drugsjanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15263261726046054614noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-61026668372790295792010-04-21T14:17:02.571+01:002010-04-21T14:17:02.571+01:00Like you, I agree with Reuter on some issues, and...Like you, I agree with Reuter on some issues, and not on others. I assume you would differ with his position on cannabis for example: <br />http://bit.ly/133PA3<br /><br />Anyway, you clearly haven't read or understood what Ive said in my comment, or read what we have discussed at length in the published documents I mentioned above, so I'm not going to waste my time with this.Steve Rolleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487781869462634203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-89259790664794274492010-04-21T13:44:16.973+01:002010-04-21T13:44:16.973+01:00Steve
You say:
"Even if drug use/harms were t...Steve<br />You say:<br />"Even if drug use/harms were to rise under a regulated regime there would not necessarily be an increase in total harms (or even TOTAL HARMS)".<br /><br />You are totally at variance with what Reuter said in his testimony and I say your inserted words "not necessarily" is disingenous in the extreme. And note that Reuter is possibly the most quoted economist writing regularly on drugs issues<br /><br />The evidence of the tobacco/alcohol model-as variably applied worldwide, is very much against your position. <br /><br />This is hard evidence, you cannot escape. I say your legalisation model is a stab in the dark based on no more than your hunch, almost the point that Reuter made.<br /><br />Hardly a recipe for sound policy development.David Raynesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-32450281218473797542010-04-21T10:22:42.887+01:002010-04-21T10:22:42.887+01:00The issue of potential unintended negative consequ...The issue of potential unintended negative consequences of drug/policy reform (including increases in use) are discussed in some detail in the recent Transform Blueprint book (Nov 09), Transform's Cost Benefit Analysis report (April 09), and in Transform's Tools for the Debate (07). All are freely available on line.<br /><br />The point that Nadlemann makes (read it again), and we have made (also, see reports above), that you ignore, is that there are harms associated with drug use and there are harms associated with drug prohibition and the illegal market it creates. This is a crucial distinction that you never seem able to acknowledge - though the UNODC are now willing to do.<br /><br />Even if drug use/harms were to rise under a regulated regime there would not necessarily be an increase in total harms (or even TOTAL HARMS), if there was a dramatic fall in policy related harms. This is demonstrated in some detail in the CBA report which models a number of scenarios for increased use.<br /><br />You also ignore two crucial points:<br /><br />1. drug use itself becomes intrinsically less risky under a regulated system that would involve regulated products (known dose and purtiy, saftey info on packaging etc), and regulated environments, and the ability tom encourage less risky using behaviours. That obviously changes the dynamic of your equation re total harm - because average risk/harm falls. Illegal markets maximise risk by promoting more profitable (but potent and risky products), high risk behaviours and high risk environments. Again - this is all explored in Blueprint, which you have a copy of and claim to have read.<br /><br />2. Please explain how prohibition has reduced use, or production/ availability, during the decades since 1961. Even a cursory examination of the data here and globally would suggest the opposite to be true.<br /><br />Whilst not ruling out the possibility of increased use under legal regulation model, we have argued that if done properly - with appropriate controls on marketing and availability for example (again, as explored in tedious detail in Blueprint)- this needn't be the case - indeed it would create a better political environment for more effective prevention efforts, which would also be able to be far better funded. The modeling of use post-legalisation that Reteur has done, In drug war herecies for example - is based on a commercial model with the sort of marketing more associated with alcohol and tobacco.<br /><br />Tobacco use has fallen steadily over the last three decades due to a combination of effective public health interventions and education, combined with better regulation of price packaging and smoking in public places. It has not had to default to mass criminalisation or blanket prohibitions. There are also chapters on lessons from alcohol and tobacco policy in Blueprint.<br /><br />To suggest we ave not considered these issues is disingenuous in the extreme. Please read, or re-read, what we have clearly stated in print before again copy and pasting in your lame non-arguments.Steve Rolleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487781869462634203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-55444312813377700182010-04-20T19:40:09.125+01:002010-04-20T19:40:09.125+01:00Interesting that Nadelmann, who apparently wants t...Interesting that Nadelmann, who apparently wants to legalise almost anything and everything, quotes Reuter. Strange choice but of course Nadelmann is being selective of what Reuter has said.<br /><br />Reuter's testimony has made the clear point that drug legalisation (as advocated by Nadelmannn) is a very risky strategy (a risk which advocates of legalisation generally fail to acknowledge). <br /><br />Reuter has said that is because TOTAL DRUG HARM =AVERAGE HARM PER USER X TOTAL USE.<br /><br />Reuter has also suggested this means that TOTAL HARM can increase even if average harm goes down. <br /><br />I comment that I agree with Reuter, TOTAL HARM could well increase, very substantially indeed, as the evidence of the worldwide tobacco/alcohol model amply demonstrates.<br /><br />When I saw Danny Kushlik of Transform asked recently what were the unforseen consequences of drug legalisation, he failed to deal with the question. <br /><br />He was absolutely stumped for an answer. That was very instructive indeed. It is a question he should have plainly thought about and been prepared for. <br /><br />It is a very fair question. I think Reuter has answered it.David Raynesnoreply@blogger.com