Are markets moral?

[Skepdick]

Why do people take addictive drugs? I had assumed because it feels good and people want to feel good.

The Rat Park experiment tells us different.

Obviously, drugs are fun. But addiction is about more than just that. The problem is that you never hear about the functional drug addicts (because they never catch the news headlines), what you hear about is the extreme cases which totally skews our perspective on how addiction works, what addiction is and how to deal with it.

Lookup "Carl Hart" on youtube.

[Skepdick]

Decriminalisation isn't about preventing use.

Did I say it was?

Yes. You did actually. You literally framed the discussion around legalisation/decriminalisation and how it relates to use.

I'm thinkin' legalizin' or decriminalizin', over the long haul, would land us with pretty much the same folks usin' and the same folks not usin' as we have now.


If heroin were legal, available, and cheap: are you gonna try it?

I wouldn't.

[Skepdick]

What did Portugal do that helped addicts recover?

Decriminalization meant that addicts are no longer put through the penal/justice system (which is incapable of rehabilitating them anyway).

Public funds are now used to supply addicts with methadone which helps them function in society.
There are other social support programs that help, but basically Portugal is doing the opposite of "You got yourself in this mess - deal with the consequences." - addicts were harming society, so helping addicts was socially desirable.

https://news.sky.com/story/how-portugal ... s-11996790

Or you can just start from Wikipedia and follow the references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

[henry quirk]

You literally framed the discussion around legalisation/decriminalisation

I also sort of wonder about things like addictive drugs. Would a free market allow for the unfettered selling of things that are addictive and perhaps self-destructive? Or would there be some degree of regulation against openly selling such things?

Seems to me: free men and women ought to be able to ingest what they choose, and bear full responsibility for the consequences.

Gary is the one who took us down the current path...

I don't know. It seems like everyone knows now that the consequences are bad for taking illegal drugs but we have a drug epidemic anyway. Would it be even worse if the drugs weren't illegal to sell?

It seems to work out that folks who use, use no matter the legality, and, folks who don't use, don't use no matter the legality.

Prohibition just seems to make criminals more clever and, of course, it makes them wealthy.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the biggest, behind-the-scenes, supporters of prohibition are drug lords.

I suppose that could be true. However, I would imagine that some people don't use certain drugs because they are illegal and they are afraid of doing something that is illegal. Making it legal might increase the number of people who try some drugs and become addicted. Maybe more users might come into contact with dangerous, addictive drugs if barriers are lowered. Making addictive drugs legal would probably lower their cost and make them easier to get hold of. It seems like common sense would tell us that lowering the cost and making them easier to get hold of would increase the number of users. Of course, common sense isn't always right.

I didn't frame nuthin'...I'm respondin' to Gary.

[Skepdick]

You literally framed the discussion around legalisation/decriminalisation

I also sort of wonder about things like addictive drugs. Would a free market allow for the unfettered selling of things that are addictive and perhaps self-destructive? Or would there be some degree of regulation against openly selling such things?

Seems to me: free men and women ought to be able to ingest what they choose, and bear full responsibility for the consequences.

You are being defensive, Henry.

I am simply pointing out that the problem with drug addicts wouldn't be a social problem if they could "bear full responsibility for the consequences".

It's because they are dysfunctional as members of society and drag others down with them is why we call them (dysfunctional) addicts. Different from the functional addicts. They can't even bear the responsibility of holding a job.

Decriminalisation is about turning the dysfunctional addicts into functional addicts. And (if possible) to non-addicts.

[henry quirk]

You are being defensive, Henry.

Nope: just pointin' you assessed wrong.

[Gary Childress]

Why do people take addictive drugs? I had assumed because it feels good and people want to feel good.

The Rat Park experiment tells us different.

Obviously, drugs are fun. But addiction is about more than just that. The problem is that you never hear about the functional drug addicts (because they never catch the news headlines), what you hear about is the extreme cases which totally skews our perspective on how addiction works, what addiction is and how to deal with it.

Lookup "Carl Hart" on youtube.

Interesting. I found this video of him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9HMifCoSko

From the sounds of it, just having meaningful lives would eliminate a lot of drug use. But that seems so far away from what many of us have now in this world.

[Sculptor]

Well, I remember once commenting long ago to a young girl who had done volunteer work helping people rehab from drugs that drugs ought to be legalized across the board. She got mad at me and gave me "what for", told me how could I say that when she had seen people hopelessly strung out on heroin and whatnot. Maybe pot and less severe drugs ought to be legalized but should heroin and stuff like that be legalized?

I agree that there is racial disparity in how drug policy is enforced that needs to be addressed and probably it should be more enforced against the production and distribution side, than the consumption side. Perhaps even legalize hard drugs to some degree but have various restrictions and not make them too easy to obtain.

When the USA takes responsibility for its citizen's education and welfare things might change.
But making drugs illegal does not work. Decriminalising them does no harm,
Drugs have been legal since the dawn of time, until the 20thC
You might stop and ask why people take drugs.
And look at the record of other countries' policies.

Why do people take addictive drugs? I had assumed because it feels good and people want to feel good. However, that good feeling comes at a price if their health deteriorates. Some drugs can trigger mental health disorders and others I believe pose physical health risks from overuse.

What's your point here?
Not sure I follow?

Maybe you should also ask if there might be other factrs that lead to addiction such as alienation, prejudice, poverty...

[Gary Childress]

When the USA takes responsibility for its citizen's education and welfare things might change.
But making drugs illegal does not work. Decriminalising them does no harm,
Drugs have been legal since the dawn of time, until the 20thC
You might stop and ask why people take drugs.
And look at the record of other countries' policies.

Why do people take addictive drugs? I had assumed because it feels good and people want to feel good. However, that good feeling comes at a price if their health deteriorates. Some drugs can trigger mental health disorders and others I believe pose physical health risks from overuse.

What's your point here?
Not sure I follow?

You said, "you might stop and ask why people take drugs". So that is what I was doing. Asking you why do people take addictive drugs. My impression has always been because they make the people who take them feel good. Is there a different reason why people take them?

[RCSaunders]

Do free markets tend to favor moral people or do they tend to favor immoral people? Do free markets tend to entice people to moral behavior or do they tend to entice people to immoral behavior? In other words, would a psychopath do better in a free market than a more saintly person?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccull ... d950df791e

"Free market," is an oxymoron. If you want to participate in a market, you have to pay your way.

[Gary Childress]

Do free markets tend to favor moral people or do they tend to favor immoral people? Do free markets tend to entice people to moral behavior or do they tend to entice people to immoral behavior? In other words, would a psychopath do better in a free market than a more saintly person?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccull ... d950df791e

"Free market," is an oxymoron. If you want to participate in a market, you have to pay your way.

That's not what I meant by "free market". It's a fallacy of equivocation. You're mixing terminology. A free market is an unfettered market, and unregulated, not a market where people don't have to pay their way.

[RCSaunders]

Do free markets tend to favor moral people or do they tend to favor immoral people? Do free markets tend to entice people to moral behavior or do they tend to entice people to immoral behavior? In other words, would a psychopath do better in a free market than a more saintly person?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccull ... d950df791e

"Free market," is an oxymoron. If you want to participate in a market, you have to pay your way.

That's not what I meant by "free market". It's a fallacy of equivocation. You're mixing terminology. A free market is an unfettered market, and unregulated, not a market where people don't have to pay their way.

Sorry you got caught up in the rhetoric. I was emphasizing the fact, "unfettered," does not mean, "without cost or consequence," which most discussion of economics ignore.

It's what I mean by an unregulated market. If you want to participate in any market, you must either have a product or service to sell, or a product or service (or a monetary representative of same) to exchange for (buy) other's products or services. Markets, "favor," those who produce the best product at the best price, that is, they favor virtue. Markets are only for producers, not, "simple Simons."

[henry quirk]

"Free market," is an oxymoron. If you want to participate in a market, you have to pay your way.

That's not what I meant by "free market". It's a fallacy of equivocation. You're mixing terminology. A free market is an unfettered market, and unregulated, not a market where people don't have to pay their way.

Sorry you got caught up in the rhetoric. I was emphasizing the fact, "unfettered," does not mean, "without cost or consequence," which most discussion of economics ignore.

It's what I mean by an unregulated market. If you want to participate in any market, you must either have a product or service to sell, or a product or service (or a monetary representative of same) to exchange for (buy) other's products or services. Markets, "favor," those who produce the best product at the best price, that is, they favor virtue. Markets are only for producers, not, "simple Simons."

a market is people transactin'; a free market is people transactin' without regulation

it's that simple

[RCSaunders]

That's not what I meant by "free market". It's a fallacy of equivocation. You're mixing terminology. A free market is an unfettered market, and unregulated, not a market where people don't have to pay their way.

Sorry you got caught up in the rhetoric. I was emphasizing the fact, "unfettered," does not mean, "without cost or consequence," which most discussion of economics ignore.

It's what I mean by an unregulated market. If you want to participate in any market, you must either have a product or service to sell, or a product or service (or a monetary representative of same) to exchange for (buy) other's products or services. Markets, "favor," those who produce the best product at the best price, that is, they favor virtue. Markets are only for producers, not, "simple Simons."

a market is people transactin'; a free market is people transactin' without regulation

it's that simple

I know what you mean, Henry. The original question was, "Do free markets tend to entice people to moral behavior or do they tend to entice people to immoral behavior?" I've only been pointing out what the nature of a market is.

If what you mean by, "transactin'" is trading, value for value, OK, but a, "transaction," includes any kind of interchange from information to business without regard to its nature. A man holding up a bank and a teacher's union negotiating higher wages are both transactions.

If people are trading, to the extent they are trading, the market in which they are trading is free, else they wouldn't be able to make those trades. That's why I don't bother calling a market a "free," market. To whatever extent people are prevented from trading as they would choose there is no market. It is certainly true that regulation kills a free market, but it is important to point out only a government can coercively regulate a market.

All markets are regulated, if by nothing else, then by those who provide the market structure. Banks, stores, businesses, and customers all determine how a market will be run. If a store owner refuses to carry certain products or charge a certain price, that is a regulation. The difference is, when it is not government regulation no one is forced to use any market they do not choose to, and may use any market that is available to them. I think it is important to make it clear a market, free or not, does not mean just anyone can buy or sell just anything (which those who despise free markets often imply). Someone must produce the products that are available in a market and someone must be willing and able to buy the products before there can be a market.

Cut to the chase, markets favor and encourage virtues and resist and discourage bums and vices. All government regulation of markets discourages virtue and encourages bums and vices.

[Gary Childress]

"Free market," is an oxymoron. If you want to participate in a market, you have to pay your way.

That's not what I meant by "free market". It's a fallacy of equivocation. You're mixing terminology. A free market is an unfettered market, and unregulated, not a market where people don't have to pay their way.

Sorry you got caught up in the rhetoric. I was emphasizing the fact, "unfettered," does not mean, "without cost or consequence," which most discussion of economics ignore.

It's what I mean by an unregulated market. If you want to participate in any market, you must either have a product or service to sell, or a product or service (or a monetary representative of same) to exchange for (buy) other's products or services. Markets, "favor," those who produce the best product at the best price, that is, they favor virtue. Markets are only for producers, not, "simple Simons."

OK. That's a good point also, then.