Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!jj
From: jj@alice.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Drug dealing a ??FREE?? market?
Message-ID: <3465@alice.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Mar-85 13:45:37 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.3465
Posted: Thu Mar 14 13:45:37 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Mar-85 04:09:16 EST
Organization: New Jersey State Farm for the Terminally Bewildered
Lines: 56


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