Does the issue of drugs make the left right and and the right left?

[Idaho]

I say it does. Most left-leaning folk abhore the idea that the market will out, that it can't be bucked. Yet will often argue that criminalising drugs is unworkable for that very reason.

Right leaning folk, in turn, will say that drugs have to be stamped out, controlled.

How does each side of the spectrum see this old Milton Friedman article on Drugs?

 

[inflatable jesus]

I'm extremely far to the left and I don't have a problem with anything that Friedman says in that article.

I don't think it's quite true that it makes the left right and vice versa, it just brings out the libertarian tendencies in the left and the authoritarian tendencies in the right.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

. . .
Right leaning folk, in turn, will say that drugs have to be stamped out, controlled.
. . .

Think you'll have to clarify whether you mean economically right wing (which I'd interpret to mean free-marketeers) or politically right wing (which, in the UK at least, I'd also interpret to mean free-marketeers) or Daily Mail readers.

 

[Spion]

it depends what you mean by left and right really. Well?

 

[Idaho]

Yes well all debates can be dragged to a halt by endless rounds of defining terms and arguing over those terms. I'm happy for people to pick up and run with what ever definitions they like, providing they give some indication as to what those definitions are.

The point is do left leaning people agree with the free market in drugs but not in say, utilities?

 

[Blagsta]

I don't think you can compare the two tbh. The argument for the legalisation of drugs is to do with harm reduction mostly, which is irrelevant when talking about utilities.

 

[Spion]

It all depends what is meant by left and right. My take is that there is:

Right wing libertarian - free-market/individual-responsibility right with a desire to minimise the state and therefore seeing drugs as an individual choice (there used to be some Tories of this ilk)
Right wing authoritarian (mainstream Tory) - pretty much what our drugs regime has been for decades, which doesn't really differ much from . . .
Left reformist (Labour right/centre/reformist left) - ie, state control/proscription with perhaps, although not necessarily, with a greater eye to dealing with causes prevention than the above
left revolutionaries/anarchists - would advocate non-state solutions, ie decriminalisation with control of drugs and attendant issues to be determined by users/communities/health workers etc

Clear?

 

[Idaho]

I don't think you can compare the two tbh. The argument for the legalisation of drugs is to do with harm reduction mostly, which is irrelevant when talking about utilities.

Surely it is mostly about individual liberty?

 

[Idaho]

It all depends what is meant by left and right. My take is that there is:

Right wing libertarian - free-market/individual-responsibility right with a desire to minimise the state and therefore seeing drugs as an individual choice (there used to be some Tories of this ilk)
Right wing authoritarian (mainstream Tory) - pretty much what our drugs regime has been for decades, which doesn't really differ much from . . .
Left reformist (Labour right/centre/reformist left) - ie, state control/proscription with perhaps, although not necessarily, with a greater eye to dealing with causes prevention than the above
left revolutionaries/anarchists - would advocate non-state solutions, ie decriminalisation with control of drugs and attendant issues to be determined by users/communities/health workers etc

Clear?

So are you saying that lefties don't acknowledge the problem being one of trying to control an stop market interactions. But see drugs as merely a problem that needs to be dealt with like all other problems - via some commune/collective/etc?

 

[Spion]

So are you saying that lefties don't acknowledge the problem being one of trying to control an stop market interactions. But see drugs as merely a problem that needs to be dealt with like all other problems - via some commune/collective/etc?

I think only right wing libertarians would be for complete hands off approaches. Anyone one the left, I think, would acknowledge the need for controls, even if that were with the aim of ensuring good quality

Some 'lefties' support state means of regulating and/or stopping supply while some would say it's an issue that needs dealing with in non-state ways with community bodies in control.

if you asked the question more directly in P&P you'd probably get a variety of responses

 

[Idaho]

I don't bother with P&P. I would have someone giving me links to some dead Russian, or the thread would turn into some rant by some obscure lefty faction.

 

[Spion]

Well, all I meant was that asking 'what do you think should be done about drugs' would be a more straightforward way of seeing what people think

 

[Blagsta]

Surely it is mostly about individual liberty?

Well there are different arguments for legalisation, yes. However harm reduction figures quite strongly.

 

[Blagsta]

So are you saying that lefties don't acknowledge the problem being one of trying to control an stop market interactions. But see drugs as merely a problem that needs to be dealt with like all other problems - via some commune/collective/etc?

The thing is, we already have a free market in drugs. Legalisation would actually introduce some controls.

 

[untethered]

The issue has nothing to do with economic politics as it's about an issue of social/individual liberty.

It'd be ranked on the "personal freedom" scale of the Nolan Chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart

 

[Blagsta]

The issue has nothing to do with economic politics as it's about an issue of social/individual liberty.

It'd be ranked on the "personal freedom" scale of the Nolan Chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart

Except that is based on the premise that free markets have something to do with freedom...which many would dispute.

 

[untethered]

Except that is based on the premise that free markets have something to do with freedom...which many would dispute.

True. It might not be the time and place for that particular discussion.

 

[Spion]

The issue has nothing to do with economic politics as it's about an issue of social/individual liberty.

It'd be ranked on the "personal freedom" scale of the Nolan Chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart

I don't see how 'economic politics' and social/individual liberty can be separated, except conceptually

 

[Idaho]

The thing is, we already have a free market in drugs. Legalisation would actually introduce some controls.

I see where you are coming from, however it isn't really a free market, it's a black market. Which means that prices are high due to risk, very fluid and tend to be affected by supply availability.

Also a free market relies on free transactions based on a reasonable amount of knowledge of what is being offered - and this doesn't happen with drugs.

 

[Idaho]

Well, all I meant was that asking 'what do you think should be done about drugs' would be a more straightforward way of seeing what people think

I'm not so much interested in a discussion about whether drugs should be legalised/decrim/etc. More about whether the drug debate misses 'party lines' or at least conventional axis of political thought.

 

[Spion]

I'm not so much interested in a discussion about whether drugs should be legalised/decrim/etc. More about whether the drug debate misses 'party lines' or at least conventional axis of political thought.

Well, I guess the vast majority of people who adhere to the 'conventional' axes of political thought are in favour of state control/prohibition.

 

[Idaho]

Do you think that is true though? Do you think people are generally in favour of state control? My impression (from a lifetime spent around drug taking folk I suppose) is that most people seem to believe in some degree of decriminalisation.

 

[Spion]

Do you think that is true though? Do you think people are generally in favour of state control? My impression (from a lifetime spent around drug taking folk I suppose) is that most people seem to believe in some degree of decriminalisation.

Some degree is not all, and think about most MP's standpoints, the number of Telegraph and Mail readers etc. And it's not like everyone who ever does drugs in any way has a fully thought through position on drug law.

 

[Blagsta]

I see where you are coming from, however it isn't really a free market, it's a black market. Which means that prices are high due to risk, very fluid and tend to be affected by supply availability.

Also a free market relies on free transactions based on a reasonable amount of knowledge of what is being offered - and this doesn't happen with drugs.

Its a free market - it has no controls on it. Legalisation would control the market.

 

[Idaho]

Its a free market - it has no controls on it. Legalisation would control the market.

The pre-legalisation and post-legalisation market would still be fundamentally controlled by supply and demand. Pre-legalisation this would be strongly influenced/distorted by the reduction and difficulty of supply and the risk to cutomers of arrest.

Post-legalisation the influence/distortion would depend on whether the govt subsidised or prescribed; or they penalised through taxes.

 

[solartrinity]

I think either left or right would have a view to ban substances instead of legalise them as society doesnt accept drug taking as the norm and if the goverment showed a view of changing its point of view from drugs are evil and need stamping out to lets legalise them they know for a fact they would be out at the next election as society needs reassurance that these bad things are being seen as illegal and action took to against drugs and drug takers, who rob off society to fuel thier addiction and are the cause to so much badness in the world. Unfortunately they dont realise what alchohol does to you compared to taking say ecstacy and the fact that in the last goverment report assessing the harms of ecstacy (july 2006) actually had findings that alcohol and tobbacco was far more addictive and harmful than taking ecstacy. Hopefully one day people will learn to be a bit more openminded as the generations pass but for now 40 a day smoking and then a good binge drink and a punch up on a friday and sat night is just the norm,

Emma
xxxxx

 

[Blagsta]

The pre-legalisation and post-legalisation market would still be fundamentally controlled by supply and demand. Pre-legalisation this would be strongly influenced/distorted by the reduction and difficulty of supply and the risk to cutomers of arrest.

Post-legalisation the influence/distortion would depend on whether the govt subsidised or prescribed; or they penalised through taxes.

I guess it all depends on whether you think a truly free market is possible. I don't. But the black market is fairly close. The benefits of legalising would be in getting rid of the time wasted by the police and courts in prosecuting people, quality control, reduction of social stigma, focus on medical/social aspects of drug problems etc.

 

[Idaho]

I guess it all depends on whether you think a truly free market is possible. I don't. But the black market is fairly close. The benefits of legalising would be in getting rid of the time wasted by the police and courts in prosecuting people, quality control, reduction of social stigma, focus on medical/social aspects of drug problems etc.

By your definition then all markets are free markets. I don't think a free market is possible (in the purist, Austrian school style). I think supply and demand do meet at the point of price, and all actions or market conditions around will affect that price.

So what you are saying, as a lefty and drug worker (and forgive me for the glib, and perhaps innacurate characterisations) is that for you legalisation means taking drugs away from the free market?

 

[Blagsta]

By your definition then all markets are free markets.

Errrr...no.

I don't think a free market is possible (in the purist, Austrian school style). I think supply and demand do meet at the point of price, and all actions or market conditions around will affect that price.

Not being an economist, I don't really know what this means.

So what you are saying, as a lefty and drug worker (and forgive me for the glib, and perhaps innacurate characterisations) is that for you legalisation means taking drugs away from the free market?

Yes. Making the market legal could introduce controls. Limits on age, quality, places of purchase etc - much like alcohol.

 

[Kripcat]

www.politicalcompass.org