The solution to the U.S. war on drugs

[bamawrx]

People don't really drink bathtub gin anymore do they?

There are some drugs that are high quality and others that are crap. If we stop the drug war and give away the drugs for free like I propose, we won't be giving away paint cans, meth, crack, etc.. It will be the "good" stuff clean and pure.

No profit, no cost, no tax, just free high quality drugs provided at "our" expense.

Just think of all the police time wasted on this effort that could be directed to other crimes that get overlooked. If anything the crime rate would fall to almost nothing! Just ask any cop about the crimes he sees and if they have some connection to drugs. Trying to buy, sell, cheat, steal, kill, etc.. all related to the black market for drugs.

Better yet why not leave it to the States? I'd love for some of the liberal areas to give away the drugs and attract all the loosers, so my conservative state can clean up a little bit.

 

[neoncowboy]

Some reasons why legalizing drugs is a bad idea.
1. Some drugs are far more addicting than nicotine and alcohol. (crack)

Well, so what. What business of the government's or society at large if people want to risk becoming addicted to drugs? I personally don't believe it's the .gov's place to interfere with this. Also, I don't think laws will really change the addiction equation: people of good character will avoid drug addiction regardless of the law, people of poor character will continue to choose drugs, regardless the law. All the law change does is to make poor character and drug use a non-criminal act.

2. Some drugs are far more mind altering than nicotine and alcohol. (lsd, pcp)

And? I've had some experience with drugs & alcohol when I was younger. I've never been more mind-altered than when under the influence of vodka...which is commonly available. There's no reason to try to legislate non-altered states of mind, we already have enough laws that criminalize legitimately criminal behavior (eg: threatening people, assault, etc). If people are minding their own business during their LSD trip, what business is it of the government's?

3. Hallucinations are not controllable and people will hurt themselves (not really a problem) and other people. ( a big problem)

We already have laws against people hurting one another.

4. Health care costs will increase due to increased drug use.

That a drug users problems cause health care costs to rise is simply indicative of problems in our health care system...not of drug use. By this same logic, you would support banning sausage biscuits, cigarette smoking and high school football.

Why should someone else's drug problem cause my health insurance costs to rise? Because of the socialization of health care...which I am as opposed to as I am drug prohibition.

5. Driving would become more dangerous.

Driving is already dangerous. We already have laws against driving under the influence. Do they keep people from DUI? Then what rationale exists to support the notion that prohibition laws do?

6. Companies would be reticent to sell drugs from fear of being sued.

Ah, perhaps. But imagine the market created for drug companies! drug companies would be able to invest in R&D to create a whole new class of legal recreational drugs that are safer, less prone to abuse and more predictable in their effect. Why would people risk using dangerous drugs like methamphetamine or PCP if you could buy really fun pills from a pharmacy that were (reasonably) safe?

 

[hot head]

sindawe thanks

thanks for the info i will keep an open mind. i will try to get some of the books or other info on these people.

 

[DRZinn]

neoncowboy, ya beat me to it, podna.

 

[Pafrmu]

Some counter points

Well, so what. What business of the government's or society at large if people want to risk becoming addicted to drugs? I personally don't believe it's the .gov's place to interfere with this. Also, I don't think laws will really change the addiction equation: people of good character will avoid drug addiction regardless of the law, people of poor character will continue to choose drugs, regardless the law. All the law change does is to make poor character and drug use a non-criminal act.

1. Addiction and character have nothing to do with one another.
2. A good society does what it can to discourage the multiplicity of reasons that addicts become addicts.
3. Any kind of society that accepts the unnatural death of one of its members does not value human life.

And? I've had some experience with drugs & alcohol when I was younger. I've never been more mind-altered than when under the influence of vodka...which is commonly available. There's no reason to try to legislate non-altered states of mind, we already have enough laws that criminalize legitimately criminal behavior (eg: threatening people, assault, etc). If people are minding their own business during their LSD trip, what business is it of the government's?

1. Mind altering is bad.
2. Any society that oks something that is bad is stupid.

We already have laws against people hurting one another.

1. Well using the same logic as the drug legalizers: See prohibition against murder does not work. People are still murdering in the streets. We need to make murder safe, legal and rare.

That a drug users problems cause health care costs to rise is simply indicative of problems in our health care system...not of drug use. By this same logic, you would support banning sausage biscuits, cigarette smoking and high school football.

Why should someone else's drug problem cause my health insurance costs to rise? Because of the socialization of health care...which I am as opposed to as I am drug prohibition.

When insurace costs rise insurers charge everyone more. Thats the way insurace works.

Driving is already dangerous. We already have laws against driving under the influence. Do they keep people from DUI? Then what rationale exists to support the notion that prohibition laws do?

Prohibition against DUI does not work, people still do it. Lets make that legal too.

Ah, perhaps. But imagine the market created for drug companies! drug companies would be able to invest in R&D to create a whole new class of legal recreational drugs that are safer, less prone to abuse and more predictable in their effect. Why would people risk using dangerous drugs like methamphetamine or PCP if you could buy really fun pills from a pharmacy that were (reasonably) safe?

Drug companies could do this now. In fact they do. They are called anti-depressants. Guess what. They cause problems.

 

[neoncowboy]

DocZinn, the rebuttal here is all yours.

 

[No_Brakes23]

Granted the drug producers will then start growing things in state but that is significantly easier to keep an eye on.

Thoughts?

My thoughts?

You ever seen the abundance Meth trailers there are in many rural areas?

Oh, and I can't help but think of Steve Earle's Copperhead Road

Done me two tours of duty in Viet Nam
When I came home, I had a brand new plan
I take the seed from Columbia and Mexico
Plant it up a holler down Copperhead Road
Now the DEA's got a chopper in the air
Wake up screamin'-I'm back over there
I learned a thing or two from Charlie, dont' ya know?
Better stay away from Copperhead road.

That's just a song making paralells 'tween alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition, but back to the meth thing, what are ya gonna do? Restrict sales of sudafed? Oh that's right, politicians are trying that. Funny, here in Cali, it is Diane Feinstein pushing for it. Hmmm DiFi trying to restrict lawful acces to something because some people abuse it, where have I heard that before?

Prohibition is a joke, one that we waste of ton of money on every year. Prohibition breeds gang violence and gun control. Where do you think the first restrictions on FA weapons came from?

How anyone can be pro-RKBA and pro-War on Some Drugs is beyond me.

The War on Some Drugs is just another nanny-state attempt to turn us into a socialist state unencumbered by such obsolete ideas as freedom, liberty, responsibility and self-determination.

 

[neoncowboy]

Pafrmu,
I hear you, some of these are valid points to be considered. I don't believe that character and addiction hold an explicit cause:effect relationship...but at the same time, discipline, self control, pride and wisdom don't lead people to drug abuse and subsequent addiction.

There are plenty of harmful, 'bad' things we do that we do not expect or tolerate government intrusion of. Our diets, our sports, our sexual conduct...all sorts of things. It is a stretch to say that it's the government's responsibility to protect the people from themselves. That's a slippery slope that leads straight to totalitarianism.

Preexisting medical conditions cause health insurance to cost more for that individual, if they could even get coverage at all. If I ran a free-market health insurance company, I would not insure users of street drugs. Consequently, I wouldn't penalize non-drug users for the higher costs associated with drug use because there wouldn't be any higher costs from drug use.

Sort of like how sky divers pay more for or are unable to buy life insurance.

The prohibition's against murder, assault, etc are legitimate use of the law. The law is there to protect people and to punish these acts...they are wrong! There is nothing wrong about minding your own business with a buzz on from [fill in the blank], and thus no legitimate basis for a law about it.

The idea is for the government to offer as little intrusion into it's citizen's lives as possible, while still protecting the people. Personally, I would rather see the government err on the side of less intrusion. Either way, prohibition against drugs/drug use is pretty far fetched as a legitimate function of government and simply represents over-intrusion into the lives of the people by government.

 

[GunnySkox]

2. A good society does what it can to discourage the multiplicity of reasons that addicts become addicts.

Being a good society has nothing to do with throwing people in jail or having the government stick its nose into things. If you want to intervene for your friends, or your kids, or your family, that's tippity-top. Just tell Uncle Sam to keep his paws where they belong.

3. Any kind of society that accepts the unnatural death of one of its members does not value human life.

Society != government

It's neither the government's responsibility nor its problem to prevent individuals from doing what they like to themselves, so long as those actions do not infringe on the rights (life, liberty, or property) of others.

1. Mind altering is bad.

Says you. Millions of social drinkers, marijuana afficianados and LSD-fans disagree with you. Moreover, millions of coffee/cola drinkers and gamers (all hopped up on Jolt and Bawls) disagree, too. Plenty of physicians disagree with you, too, when they prescribe pain medications and mood-modifiers.

In any case, that isn't your decision (or the government's) to make.

1. Well using the same logic as the drug legalizers: See prohibition against murder does not work. People are still murdering in the streets. We need to make murder safe, legal and rare.

Murder (that is, the unjustified killing of an innocent) is absolutely and inherently wrong. Effing up your brain with dope, drink, or smoke is not absolutely or inherently wrong, the activity affects noone but the user; what the user does while under the influence of the drugs is his problem, and he ought to be locked up for any actual crimes he commits.

Prohibition against DUI does not work, people still do it. Lets make that legal too.

The government has the power to regulate what goes on in public and on public possessions (e.g., roads, sidewalks, places which aren't private property). They have the power to decide that operating a vehicle on THEIR roads in an intoxicated state is unacceptable, but they don't have the power to decide whether or not, say, for instance, drinking is illegal.

Drug companies could do this now. In fact they do. They are called anti-depressants. Guess what. They cause problems.

And? Do you suggest we ban antidepressants and antipsychotics, too? They can make people go even nuttier than they were before.

~GnSx

 

[DRZinn]

1. Addiction and character have nothing to do with one another.

I don't know how you can even suggest this. Some of us have the strength to avoid substances the addiction to which would adversely effect them, others do not. Yes, I know it's not quite that simple, but that's the essence of it.

2. A good society does what it can to discourage the multiplicity of reasons that addicts become addicts.

Sure, if it doesn't involve confiscating my money to spend on doing"what it can" or restricting my rights to discourage them.

3. Any kind of society that accepts the unnatural death of one of its members does not value human life.

Or maybe values human life so highly that it [gasp] allows the owners of that precious commodity to do what they wish with it, including destroy it.

1. Mind altering is bad.
2. Any society that oks something that is bad is stupid.

Are you being serious here? I happen to agree with you that "mind altering" by the use of hallucenogenic drugs is bad. But IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS whether I or anyone else engage in "mind altering." As to this point 2, would you then outlaw fatty foods? Watching too much TV?

1. Well using the same logic as the drug legalizers: See prohibition against murder does not work. People are still murdering in the streets. We need to make murder safe, legal and rare.

The fact that drug prohibition does not work, combined with the fact that using drugs hurts no-one but the user, is an argument for legalization. Murder, obviously, is quite different.

When insurace costs rise insurers charge everyone more. Thats the way insurace works.

You oviously have precious little understanding of how insurance works as well. Those with a higher risk (like tobacco use) pay much higher premiums for their insurance. Crack users would probably be totally ineligible. The fact that those crack users could then get taxpayer-subsidized health care is a separate issue that neds to be dealt with by making people responsible for their actions, including smoking crack. Also, you're making the assumption that legalizing drugs would lead to higher levels of use. I thingk the exact opposite is true. Drug use is largely driven by the counter-hegemonic culture, and I believe compromising the rebelliousness of it would actually reduce the number of first-time users and, over time, all users.

 

[Sindawe]

1. Mind altering is bad.

RRRRRRIGHT. Tell that to these guys.

In a monastery in northern India, thinly clad Tibetan monks sat quietly in a room where the temperature was a chilly 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Using a yoga technique known as g Tum-mo, they entered a state of deep meditation. Other monks soaked 3-by-6-foot sheets in cold water (49 degrees) and placed them over the meditators' shoulders. For untrained people, such frigid wrappings would produce uncontrolled shivering.

If body temperatures continue to drop under these conditions, death can result. But it was not long before steam began rising from the sheets. As a result of body heat produced by the monks during meditation, the sheets dried in about an hour.

Attendants removed the sheets, then covered the meditators with a second chilled, wet wrapping. Each monk was required to dry three sheets over a period of several hours.

Why would anyone do this? Herbert Benson, who has been studying g Tum-mo for 20 years, answers that "Buddhists feel the reality we live in is not the ultimate one. There's another reality we can tap into that's unaffected by our emotions, by our everyday world. Buddhists believe this state of mind can be achieved by doing good for others and by meditation.

Source: http://www.zudfunck.com/zudfunck/2005/01/buddists_dry_sh.html

I alter my mind daily with my morning fix of java, and monthly with ethanol when I play cards. I also alter my mind with endogenous chemicals when I learn a new skill, play an exhilarating game of paint ball or in lucid dreams.

 

[Biker]

I don't use drugs at all. Now, excuse me while I go make another Bailey's and Coffee and open another carton of smokes.
Biker

 

[Pafrmu]

What we've got here is a failure to communicate

I guess what this really boils down to is a discussion about religion. Where do rights come from and what are they?

To answer the first part of the question, I believe that rights are given by the God of the Bible. Now the problem with a statement like this is that is is either fact or fiction. Unfortunately for protagonists and antagonists, this can neither be proven or disproven.

To answer the second part of the question, I believe that rights are something to which someone has a just claim. (I stole this from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rights definition 2.)

Now, given that information. I would say that no one has a just claim to be free to do drug use or practice anthing else that God would view as sin.

But, I would also say that nowhere in the Bible would I be required or desired by GOD to inflict my religion upon others. He would have each come depending upon their relationship with Him. But I also believe that I am required and its God desire that I allow no one to inflict their religion upon me, even to the point of my own or that of my loved one's death.

So where does this leave us and where should we focus our discussion?

Does it just boil down to property rights?

Thoughts?

 

[Derby FALs]

What we've got here is a failure to communicate

I guess what this really boils down to is a discussion about religion. Where do rights come from and what are they?

To answer the first part of the question, I believe that rights are given by the God of the Bible. Now the problem with a statement like this is that is is either fact or fiction. Unfortunately for protagonists and antagonists, this can neither be proven or disproven.

To answer the second part of the question, I believe that rights are something to which someone has a just claim. (I stole this from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/rights definition 2.)

Now, given that information. I would say that no one has a just claim to be free to do drug use or practice anthing else that God would view as sin.

But, I would also say that nowhere in the Bible would I be required or desired by GOD to inflict my religion upon others. He would have each come depending upon their relationship with Him. But I also believe that I am required and its God desire that I allow no one to inflict their religion upon me, even to the point of my own or that of my loved one's death.

So where does this leave us and where should we focus our discussion?

Does it just boil down to property rights?

Thoughts?

My God doesn't force me to obey Him. He gives me freewill to screw up on my own. If I do screw up and really want to do better He will give me a fresh start with no strings.

So keep your side of the street clean and I'll keep my side clean. Or not...

 

[Pafrmu]

My God doesn't force me to obey Him. He gives me freewill to screw up on my own. If I do screw up and really want to do better He will give me a fresh start with no strings.

Sounds like we are talking about the same God then.

So keep your side of the street clean and I'll keep my side clean. Or not...

So are you sayin that it comes down to property rights?

 

[bowfin]

/*take the profit out of it and they'll stop*/

Not so. Drug dealers are not drug dealers because they like dealing drugs. They don't have a passion for on time and reliable deliveries of high quality pot and meth at competitive prices. They deal drugs because they like getting lots of tax free cash money for very little work involved and not having to follow any rules.

If you make drugs legal, the current drug dealers aren't going to put on a tie and become an assistant manager at "Bongs-R-Us", clocking in precisely at 8:30 A.M., working every other Saturday. They won't be studying at the Community College to work their way up to Manager. They are going to move black market drugs across the border, or find another line of work with the same pay/workload/independence model they are accustomed to having, which is something else illegal. Drug dealers won't go away with legalized drugs, they become some other type of criminal.

Second, if Asbestos, Silicone, Tobacco, Firearms, and Fast Food makers are getting their pants sued off, how is a product like black tar heroin going to be a profitable product, free from litigation? How do you word the disclaimer for meth to "use responsibly", that will hold up in the courts? Which drugs are safer than Red Food Dye #2 or Nutra Sweet? Drugs are not a viable product if legalized.

 

[neoncowboy]

I guess what this really boils down to is a discussion about religion.

huh?

I thought we were talking about law, public policy and the war on drugs.

Thoughts?

I believe in the same God. He has given me free will to pursue whatever I want to: right, wrong or indifferent. When I use that free will to honor Him, He takes great joy in me. As His child, when I exercise that free will in a way that is disobedient, He accepts me anyway, forgives me, picks me up out of the dirt to brush me off and set me back on my feet.

Remember the prodigal son? Think he used drugs while he was out squandering his father's wealth? When he demanded his portion to go live as he pleased, what was his father's response?

That's God.

Government is not God. It shouldn't even atttempt to try to mandate the behavior that God asks for.

Property rights? No! It's the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right to do what you want as long as you don't interfere with the rights of others. The right to act as an individual. The right to own yourself.

Sin is between me and God, not me and the Government.

 

[GunnySkox]

I guess what this really boils down to is a discussion about religion. Where do rights come from and what are they?

Natural rights are those rights which we observe to arise in "natural law" which we understand by observing nature. Humans have a natural right to "life" because everything in the world will fight tooth, nail, leaf and root to survive; humans have a natural right to "liberty" because beings will fight to be free, upto and surpassing chewing limbs off or killing other things to protect their freedom; humans have a natural right to "property" because we can observe that other creatures take control of, possess, and fight to protect territory (even plants and coral do this).

To answer the first part of the question, I believe that rights are given by the God of the Bible.

That's fine and dandy, you can believe that all the way to the bank and back, for all it ought to matter to anyone else. Keep your Jesus off of my person, and out of my house. Your beliefs are your own, and you've no right to force anyone else to act how you think they ought to outside of maintaining your natural rights (e.g., ganking somebody who's trying to kill you/steal from you/kidnap you/etc.), any more than I've a right to force you to snort coke or drop acid.

Now the problem with a statement like this is that is is either fact or fiction. Unfortunately for protagonists and antagonists, this can neither be proven or disproven.

Things which are neither "fact or fiction" don't deserve a place in deciding who goes to jail or for what reason.

But I also believe that I am required and its God desire that I allow no one to inflict their religion upon me, even to the point of my own or that of my loved one's death.

Nobody's inflicting their religion on you by telling you to mind your own business. It's no business of yours if somebody likes whackin' out seven ways to tuesday on chemicals whose names have more syllables than I have rounds of ammunition; similarly, it's no business of anybody else's to tell YOU that you SHOULD do drugs, or that you should have to hire or associate with people who do drugs, and that's the whole "rights" deal: you keep your paws off mine, and I keep my paws off yours, and everybody's square.

That sounded a little more antagonistic than I meant it to be, but you get the gist, yeah?

So where does this leave us and where should we focus our discussion?
Does it just boil down to property rights?
[/quotes]

I think that's reasonable. Most matters of "I don't like it and I don't think you should" should be matters of property rights. I was screaming obscenely at the TV last night because the damned legislature here in VA decided that business owners couldn't be trusted to allow or disallow their patrons to smoke or not smoke, blatantly in violation of their property rights (had the smoking ban only extended as far as "in public" I wouldn't have minded one lick, the government is free to regulate public stuff on "its" property, but once their little tendrils start creeping in the door, my hackles get all up).

Thoughts?

I am a banana!

~GnSx

 

[DRZinn]

Pafrmu, only if you think that our rights come from God, in the sense that the God depicted in the Christian Bible consciously granted those rights, are we talking about religion.

If you think, as I do, that the souce of those rights don't matter, and that we have them by virtue of being human beings, then religion doesn't enter into it.

If you believe that a Christian God granted those rights,

given that information. I would say that no one has a just claim to be free to do drug use or practice anthing else that God would view as sin.

makes perfect sense. Then you'd have to prohibit many (all?) other religions, and I don't think that's what you intended to say.

Drugs are not a viable product if legalized.

You could be right, but wouldn't that be even better, if a free market simply didn't produce those products?

 

[Sinsaba]

What we've got here is a failure to communicate ...

I believe that rights are given by the God of the Bible. ...

...To answer the second part of the question, I believe that rights are something to which someone has a just claim. ...

... I would say that no one has a just claim to be free to do drug use or practice anthing else that God would view as sin. ...

But, I would also say that nowhere in the Bible would I be required or desired by GOD to inflict my religion upon others. ... (emphasis mine)

I've tried to keep the concrete statements you made that I am going to respond to. If I have left anything out I do apologize please do feel free to correct me.

It seems as if your logic is that your religion says that nobody should do drugs (therefore, not doing drugs is part of your religion). At the same time you say that your religion says that you shouldn't try to inflict (your word not mine) your religion on me.

Therefore you shouldn't try to inflict the attitude that I shouldn't do drugs on me.

INFLICT an attitude is just what the WAR ON DRUGS tries to do.

 

[Maxwell]

Solve the problem with a realistic solution.

The "legalize >> tax >> educate >> treat >> contain" route is far more realistic than the "prohibit >> imprison >> shootout >> blockade >> endless war" path we have been taking.

The end goal is to limit drug use while causing as little property damage and loss of life as possible.

One meathod is a reasonable way to achieve that result. Its time consuming and would require alot of people to change their minds, but its do-able.

The other plan has proven impossible. The harder you clamp down, the more drugs cost and the more people are willing to import them. Where does it end?
A death penalty for drug trafficing? shootouts daily? rampant crime as the addicted try to maintain their habit?

Enforcing a perfect prohibition is like building a bevy of swans to cross a river when a boat will do just fine.
Yes its possible in theory but youll waste alot of time doing the same things you could have done alot faster, cheaper, and with less danger to everyone involved.

 

[Derby FALs]

Sounds like we are talking about the same God then.



So are you sayin that it comes down to property rights?

Mental property rights...

 

[bowfin]

It would be impossible to make methamphtamine a "legalized" drug. It would be impossible to make Crack cocaine a "legalized" drug.

If you have a nuts and bolts plan of how we successfully legalize drugs, let's walk through it step by step. Let me know how it gets FDA approval, how it survives lawsuits, who and where would let you open up a storefront, and how it is manufactured, stored, shipped, and sold with an end price any cheaper than what it is right now. How does the company survive boycotts by umpteen jillion groups?

Government would cease to function for years as every Senator and Congressman weighs in with his working model of how to tax and regulate it, where the money is gathered and how it is spent. How many agencies, bureaus, commissions, and Departments would line up for a piece of the pie?

The laughable statement "...and if we legalize it, the price would come down" ignores what goes into the price of cigarettes currently sold for over the counter. How much of that price consists of taxes and lawsuit liability? How much is tobacco and rolling paper?

 

[Pafrmu]

First off, sorry for thread jacking.

Thank you to everyone on their input to rights theory but that should probably left to another thread.

Back to drugs and legalizing.

There is nothing like a filling lunch to return clarity to my mind.

I could support the legalization of drugs as long as strong property rights rules were inforced. People could manufacture, use, and distribute drugs as long as it stayed entirely on the private property of those that approve.

Public property is decided upon by majority vote. If the majority decides to allow drugs on public property then so be it. If they do not, then so be it.
Drug laws should be ammended as such.

How does that sound to everyone?

 

[Sinsaba]

It would be impossible to make methamphtamine a "legalized" drug. It would be impossible to make Crack cocaine a "legalized" drug. ...

Hmm... we haven't tried making them legal so you don't KNOW we can't. We HAVE tried prohibition (twice) and it didn't work either time.

If you have a nuts and bolts plan of how we successfully legalize drugs, let's walk through it step by step. ...

Do you have a nuts and bolts plan on successfully making prohibition work?

Let me know how it gets FDA approval, how it survives lawsuits, who and where would let you open up a storefront, and how it is manufactured, stored, shipped, and sold with an end price any cheaper than what it is right now. How does the company survive boycotts by umpteen jillion groups?...

How did it work with alcohol? While it never came under the FDA you wouldn't have to have recreational drugs come under FDA either. You could use the current structure of the DEA (though MUCH smaller) to a) set standards for recreational drugs, and b) enforce the tax etc. on them.

Government would cease to function for years as every Senator and Congressman weighs in with his working model of how to tax and regulate it, where the money is gathered and how it is spent. How many agencies, bureaus, commissions, and Departments would line up for a piece of the pie?

1) "Government" would not cease to function. The public wouldn't stand for it and the representatives know it.
2) "Governement" NEVER has problems finding ways of spending monies taken from the public.
3) Agencies, bureaus, commissions and departments are already lined up for a piece of the "Government" pie. Nothing changes.

The laughable statement "...and if we legalize it, the price would come down" ignores what goes into the price of cigarettes currently sold for over the counter. How much of that price consists of taxes and lawsuit liability? How much is tobacco and rolling paper?

Look at what happened to the price of booze. Care to rethink that statement? There is an EXACT parallel here.

I would have to say that your arguments don't stand up to the logic of reality.