Prohibition never works

Prohibition was a failure in the united states, yet it still continues in many forms.
Feeding the underground marketing of substances has created a cartel of criminals. This can't go on.

The rise of al capone and others like him during the violence of the alchogol prohibition should have taught us.

National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)--the "noble experiment"--was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure.

prohibition failed

Depends on what you believe the true goal of prohibition actually is.

As I suggested here, it seems to be all about that money.

In which case, Big Brother, Uncle Sam, Fat Albert and the gang all seem to be doing quite ni¢ely with prohibition.

walter cronkite on the war on drugs

The federal government has fought terminally ill patients whose doctors say medical marijuana could provide a modicum of relief from their suffering - as though a cancer patient who uses marijuana to relieve the wrenching nausea caused by chemotherapy is somehow a criminal who threatens the public.

and that's the way it is.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by Seiko]

trashing civil liberties

Here's an interesting article laying out how the war on drugs is used to trash our constitutional rights.

Depends on what you believe the true goal of prohibition actually is. As I suggested here, it seems to be all about that money. In which case, Big Brother, Uncle Sam, Fat Albert and the gang all seem to be doing quite ni¢ely with prohibition.

Yes I do believe they're doing just fine. By taking small segments of the population and criminalizing them they slowly make it acceptable to the majority to suspend liberties. This argument holds true in so many ways and so many different topics.

You are absolutely correct.

Banning something, only makes people want it more. Forbidden fruit and all that jazz...

The second thing is that when you illegalize something, you create a niche for it on the black market. This adds to your crime rate, death rate, any sort of negative societal impact.

Only when you legalize things and regulate them do they actually become beneficial to the populace.

Good thread S&F..

~Keeper

everytime the govt. bans a product a black market is created

and people say what about the kids?

well I agree what about them?

right now it's easier for kids to get marijuana then it is to get cigarettes or alcohol.

that's what prohibition does

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Not only that it allows you to create new laws that go with the prohibition. The concept of search and seizure under the constitution is shredded by the police force.

People accept this because they don't wanna argue for criminals. They have segmented society for years using this approach.

Ir's not like "I" have anything to hide right?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I'm glad you brought that up.

children and the war on drugs

The drug war unfairly limits young people's access to higher education. The Higher Education Act, passed by Congress in 1998, restricts eligibility for any federal grant, loan or work assistance program for students convicted of a drug related offense, including simple marijuana possession.Murderers and rapists are not subject to sanction under the Act.

Did you know just being convicted of simple possession can hurt your chance for a scholarship, but murder can not?

Now that's saying something.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


You'r eoff teh mark.

see, if the govco bans somethign befor eit comes around into this country much at all, then it simply withers on teh vine and dies.

when you at some point ban somethign that is popular and well entrenched in our society, yes, youll get a huge black market and more or less absolute resistance from the populace in response. it happens with alcohol, that's why its not happening with tobacco, they're trying to slowly squeeze it out

Civil forfeiture? A by passing of rights?

fear.org

Eighty percent of property forfeited to the US during the previous decade was seized from owners who were never even charged with a crime! Over $7 billion has been forfeited to the federal government since 1985. Until the advent of FEAR law enforcement officials promoting expanded forfeiture laws comprised the overwhelming majority of lobbyists at hearings on forfeiture litigation. Meanwhile, prosecutors complained that police were less available to investigate crimes that did not involve forfeiture.

This is insane! Why do people allow their rights to be trampled in such a way? They just take the property and hold it indefinitely.

If drugs could be legal and could be expensive and could have an age restriction and independent dealers would still go to jail...

That could work.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


If you want to get them to seriously consider it add " and taxed" liked alcohol and tobacco.

The reason I don't think they're going for this is because they make too much money off of the prohibition itself. The funding, the education reforms...the seizures..incarceration, government kick backs..It's a big business really.

Ron paul weighs in

If these reasons don’t convince the drug warriors, I would urge them to go back to the Constitution and consider where there is any authority to prohibit private personal choices like this. All of our freedoms – the freedom of religion and assembly, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unnecessary government searches and seizures – stem from the precept that you own yourself and are responsible for your own choices. Prohibition laws negate self-ownership and are an absolute affront to the principles of freedom. I disagree vehemently with the recreational use of drugs, but at the same time, if people are only free to make good decisions, they are not truly free. In any case, states should decide for themselves how to handle these issues and the federal government should respect their choices.

I think ron paul makes a very good point here. At what point does our own personal choices get superseded by the law?

The ideals of our founding father was that we were free to make our own choices, and to live our lives as we saw fit. When the government dictates what we can use and ingest they are making these decisions for us.

reply to post by Seiko


Well like... I think that people who deal drugs and use money that they should be spending on their children to buy drugs should go to jail.

But maybe that makes me a bad person.

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by ravenshadow13

 

If you want to get them to seriously consider it add " and taxed" liked alcohol and tobacco.

The reason I don't think they're going for this is because they make too much money off of the prohibition itself. The funding, the education reforms...the seizures..incarceration, government kick backs..It's a big business really.

Theoretically speaking, taxing it like cigarettes, standardizing for safety purposes, and age restricting it COULD work. However I'm with you: I think that governments make enough money through the prohibition movement that they would lose money if they had decided to legalize. Economically it's not a good idea.

It's kind of like the gun-registry program in Canada - it doesn't work, but it makes a ton of money. The whole "Prohibition" campgain itself, makes a ton of money...


- Carrot

reply to post by ravenshadow13


No not at all.

My intention here is not to defend the criminals in anyway. Drig dealers are a pariah and they only deal because they think the profit motive outweighs the risks.

What I'm arguing is that the very act of prohibition has led to this. By outlawing certain things we've established a definable black market for them to operate in.

I'm also arguing that there's no real reason for tptb to lift prohibition because the funding and seizure of these markets actually empowers our court system, our police forces, and following the prison system.

The war on drugs is the funding behind the rise of the police state in the united states, and most likely elsewhere. We have accepted drugs as inherently bad, and we pour tax money into this war so people won't use them. We're funding the very police state so many of us vehemently oppose.

The reason it works for them is because they know it can't be won. It's a racket, a simple con job. It's an excuse to vilify free thinking adults who should be able to make these decisions without the intrusion of the government in their affairs.

The war on drugs was a war declared on the citizenry of the very country they are supposed to represent. It has created violence and sorrow, and has done nothing to curb the use of drugs in anyway.

reply to post by Seiko



Private prisons benefit who? Kickbacks, Contracts, Corruption

You need a population of offenders to put in them.

seekingalpha.com...

Originally posted by Seiko
My intention here is not to defend the criminals in anyway. Drig dealers are a pariah and they only deal because they think the profit motive outweighs the risks.

What I'm arguing is that the very act of prohibition has led to this. By outlawing certain things we've established a definable black market for them to operate in.

And the problem with this black market enterprise is significant. It does not allow an organ to check the quality of products on the market, it keeps prices artificially high, it finances international crime syndicates, it does not allow any taxation and many popular legal drugs tend to be more dangerous and less beneficial than some of the illegal ones.