jj@alice.UUCP (03/14/85)
Ok, guys, now I hear that drug dealers operate in a free market. I saw the sarcastic reply to that claim, and I figured the obvious factual basis would make the claim's weaknesses obvious, but it didn't, so here goes. ========= Drug dealers cannot advertise, thus the "consumer" is not operating with good information. (??consumer == victim, under the current system?) Drug dealers are operating illicitly, and take great risks with their personal freedom, and charge accordingly, after all, they have to be able to make bail, too. The supply of such stuff is restricted by the same lack of information, and thus the supply is also much more expensive. In many areas (including ALL major population centers), one or another organized crime group controls the major distribution routes, and keeps prices at their liking. All other "importers" must operate under the threat of arrest from law enforcement agents, and under the threat of summary death from the relevant organized crime group. Also, in some cases, there are two or more major organized crime groups in the same market, usually leading to violence and bloodshed. ____ In light of the fact that the "consumer" cannot have market information, cannot go to a different supplier (in most cases, however parts of Ca. are indeed different as regards ONE such substance, but not others) the "seller" is at risk of death and/or incarceration, and the distribution method is EXPECTED to have significant losses, it's clear that the "drug market" isn't anything close to a free market. The argument that 1% of drug trafficers are affected by the law or organized crime simply ignores the effects of illegality completely, when indeed the necessity to avoid publicity and legal entanglements is itself a compelling reason to disqualify the drug market as even slightly "free". ======= Please notice that I do NOT discuss the appropriateness of selling (illegal) drugs. This is a different, and considerably more complicated issue. It also ignores the most abused drug of all, of course, and the one that causes more damage than all others. (Of course, that one couldn't be a drug, since it's legal... bleaugh!) (I trust the momentary sarcasm is evident??) -- TEDDY BEARS NEED SECURITY BLANKETS ONCE IN A WHILE! "... John? Who'd of thought it! ..." (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!alice!jj
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (03/18/85)
> > Drug dealers cannot advertise, thus the "consumer" is not operating > with good information. (??consumer == victim, under the current system?) Wrong. "20/20" showed last week how the heroin dealers in Detroit label their junk with trade names. This is to get loyal customers to come back for that brand. > > Drug dealers are operating illicitly, and take great risks with their > personal freedom, and charge accordingly, after all, they have > to be able to make bail, too. An interview with the officer in charge of drug enforcement in Detroit pointed-out that the dealers make at least $250 per day. Since many of them are minors, they do not face the same charges or bail limits if arrested. > > The supply of such stuff is restricted by the same lack of > information, and thus the supply is also much more expensive. A wall with a whole in it was shown as a shop. There was a line around the block to be serviced. There was no problem with supply or customer awareness. > > In many areas (including ALL major population centers), one > or another organized crime group controls the major distribution > routes, and keeps prices at their liking. All other "importers" > must operate under the threat of arrest from law enforcement > agents, and under the threat of summary death from the relevant > organized crime group. Also, in some cases, there are two or more > major organized crime groups in the same market, usually leading to > violence and bloodshed. The above scenario MAY exist. It does NOT exist in "ALL major population centers." > > In light of the fact that the "consumer" cannot have market information, > cannot go to a different supplier (in most cases, however parts of > Ca. are indeed different as regards ONE such substance, but not > others) the "seller" is at risk of death and/or incarceration, > and the distribution method is EXPECTED to have significant losses, > it's clear that the "drug market" isn't anything close to a free > market. Since the majority of this statement is wrong (with the exception of a degree of risk), I won't bother with it. > > The argument that 1% of drug trafficers are affected by the law > or organized crime simply ignores the effects of illegality > completely, when indeed the necessity to avoid publicity and legal > entanglements is itself a compelling reason to disqualify the drug market as > even slightly "free". A free market does not have "the necessity to avoid publicity and legal entanglements"? How interesting. > *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***