Article View: sci.econ
Article #2679Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy
From: Fabrizio J Bonsignore
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:59
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:59
65 lines
5734 bytes
5734 bytes
Interestingly enough, besides the monopolic power that the ban on drugs confers to druglords (making it one of if not the biggest monopoly worlwide), it is assumed that the black market stregy brings additioal revenue since demand is inelastic. When discussing the inelasticity of the demand for drugs, at some point economists digress toward the substitution coefficients of different drugs and *alcohol*. The implicit assumption is that drugs are not interchangeable with alcohol and thus demand is inelastic, therefore higher prices mean higher revenue despite loses in demanded quantity. Yet, what they fail to acknowledge, is that drugs may not be perfectly substitutable among themselves or with alcohol, but *no taking drugs* is a perfectly valid option. This option is totally overlooked under the fantasy that drug users, once begin using drugs, cannot at any moment stop their use. This can only be true of very few cases, otherwise there would be lots of full time consumers. Once recognized this phallacy, it is obvious that no consumption is a valid option that, added to other substitutes, basically alcohol, makes demand *much more elastic* than previously assumed. Given the possibility of stopping drug use within a reasonable time framework, it can even be postulated that drug demand is, more than inelastic, elastic, as *withdrawing* from the market is an obvious choice if price or risk increment themselves, and, very specially, once TOLERANCE (which makes even non obvious options *more appealing*) settles in the individual. All in all, demand for drugs (following the usual schedule of THC as first choice, followed by harder drugs if at all), can be seen as ultimately ELASTIC. This means that the black market strategy is in fact the wrong strategy if druglords wanted to increase their revenues. An expansion of the market with lower prices would bring bigger revenue, particularly if risk in consumption is diminished. It would, of course, decrease the social costs of the ban of drugs. Though the precise elasticty is an empiric matter, it is obvious that whatever value it takes (independently of the elasticies of substitution among options), the fact that no consumption is an option even by so called *drug addicts* (doesn`t matter if it is termed force of will or detox clinic), means that the elasticity must approach that of goods with more options and be fairly elastic. A partial or total opening of the market would bring increase revenue to drug lords, depriving them of the incentive to effect side effects to keep the social notion that drugs are infallibly damaging, even for mature, well informed consumers. Further possibilities granted by an open market, like trademarks, quality control, marketing, R&D, etc. would further affect the elasticity of demand toward a more elastic schedule. This would affect police budgets, leaving the police corps and revenue services as the main interests in creating side effects even if druglords understand that opening the market would increase their revenues (it can be expected that the loss of monopolic power would be compensated by standard marketing strategies, as well as by the reduced costs once the need to keep multiple layer distributors and security forces [gunmen], is terminated). Considering that police budgets need not *necessarily* be reduced by opening the drug market, this leaves as the main effectors of side effects not the whole police corp but only those elements and their vertical mafias that get a revenue from extortion and protection. Opening the drug market would clear the atmosphere and would liberate the police of a source of corruption. (Incidentally, health services would remain at least at their present level of budgets or would increase them lightly; budget reductions in police corps would be reflected in increases in health budgets, which theoretically would make health services a natural choice for policemen affected by the reduction in budgets. Ultimately, no unemployment for honest people would be experienced, but only by those arms forces employed by the mythical druglords). Fabrizio J Bonsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore, waiting for somebody to notice...
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1107215956.281181.138400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<768f7623.0410070540.6f504c78@posting.google.com> <1105646998.449606.83590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1106175975.721982.237290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Thread: fd5f7,df3e5ce08715022f X-Google-Thread: 10a12a,df3e5ce08715022f X-Google-Thread: 101049,df3e5ce08715022f X-Google-Thread: fb1cb,df3e5ce08715022f X-Google-Thread: 107d03,df3e5ce08715022f X-Google-Attributes: gidfd5f7,gid10a12a,gid101049,gidfb1cb,gid107d03,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Fabrizio J Bonsignore" <fbonsignore@beethoven.com> Newsgroups: sci.econ,ny.general,dc.general,seattle.general,la.general Subject: Re: Side effects: the drug conspiracy Date: 31 Jan 2005 15:59:16 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 66 Message-ID: <1107215956.281181.138400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> References: <768f7623.0410070540.6f504c78@posting.google.com> <1105646998.449606.83590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1106175975.721982.237290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.100.15.236 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1107215960 3190 127.0.0.1 (31 Jan 2005 23:59:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:59:20 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1106175975.721982.237290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=67.100.15.236; posting-account=yKf8UwwAAABFL8I0LVVxaqT3lOBPEWSq