By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - What would happen to the USA if we ended prohibition right now?

DeadNotSleeping said:

1. If a person is ineligible to donate organs, then they cannot donate organs even if they wish to do so.  So no, people cannot do whatever they wish with their organs if they have successfully damaged them through substance abuse.  

It's not that they can't donate them it's just that there organs will no longer be accepted for donation. If someone wants to have the option to donate their organs then they can decide not to do drugs in the first place. 

2. Accidents, violent crime and sexual crime are still under-reported.  Of that which has been reported, alcohol has been a significant factor. 

Not nearly to the extent that it was in the thirties expercialy when it came to domestic abuse.

3. People with a history of drug use will likely be rejected as blood donors. Moreover, if contaminants are found in blood which has been donated, the blood will be discarded.  This is yet another case of people willing to donate yet unable to do so as a direct result of drug use.  

Then they should not have done drugs. Someone who eats fatty foods all day and gets little exercise can't run fast and someone who runs fast can't eat fatty foods all day and get little exercise. Yes people can either do drugs or donate blood but the decision as to which should be theirs no yours.

4. It sounds like you don't actually know what racketeering even is. 

A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, will not be affected, or would not otherwise exist.  By that definition it sounds like the drug war is a racket as gang related crime involving drugs would not exist but for the drug war.

5. Drug use was a major concern in the '60s and quite problematic in the 50's as well.  

And it still is just the government is making things a whole lot worse and more costly.

6. They don't use other methods for income?  Bribery, extortion, blackmail, fraud, scams, laundering, counterfeiting, obstruction of justice, intimidation, robbery, trafficking of weapons, humans, distribution of child pornography, any of that ring a bell?  Criminal organizations have a number of ways to make money.  Even if they lose some revenue from drug sales, they will always focus their efforts through other means and behave just as aggressively to retain their "turf".  

That is patently absurd as many criminal organizations will be unable to adapt to these forms of crime and thus be unable to support either themselves or other gang members. If crime is less lucrative then less people will become criminals. Also if this were true would the crime rates for non drug related crimes have gone up considerably if people left the drug tade due to the drug war?

7. The US isn't Portugal and never in the past 100 years have Americans suggested that greater accessibility and decreased legal ramifications will result in less use of something.  In fact, the opposite has been proven to be true time and again.

Not with drug use has that ever been proven true. The people who do drugs either way simply end up costing us alot of money.

8. There are countless who get involved with crime to support their addictions.  Like Oxycontin and other pain killers.  Greater accessibility means greater chances of addiction and existing dealers will capitalize on this.

The dealers will be unable to compete on price when it becomes legal and they are not as efficient as free market enterprise. Lower cost and reliable quality will make the users of drugs much better off as they won't have such great health risk nor have to resort to crime to pay for drugs made so expensive by the drug war.

9. And increased consumption results in more cases.  

If their is increased consumption.

10. If Canada has tighter border security than the US, the US will remedy that.  It looks pretty bad if a nation boasting a population ten times the size of its neighbor has sub-standard security measures--especially with the worry that terrorists are entering the US through Canada.

Are we talking about stopping drugs dealers from getting into Canada or terrorist getting into America? Well while were on the subject drug prohibition has given the taliban a nice profitable industry with which to raise funds for itself.

11. Please run your statement on dry counties through the Turing Test, because I truthfully do not understand what you are trying to say here.

If you make the argument that people who drink heavily are stupid it is likely that those who wanted to drink heavily left the dry counties resulting in higher IQ scores. They are not stupid because they drink lots the are stupid so they drink lots.

12. Actually at present, no, it is not their right to do so.  Current prohibition laws make it clear that people do not have the right to introduce whatever substance they wish into their bodies.  Also, most teens are not recognized as legal adults.  

I believe in the right for people to do as they wish with their own bodies as it is no one else's business at all. Someone's right to do drugs is the same as someone's right to get an abortion as it has nothing to do with anyone else.

13. Plenty of people actually work while in prison and earn an income.  They pay taxes on that income as per usual provided that they are actually doing something to earn money.  People will continue to die from impure drugs just as people continue to die from home-made alcohol.  Finally, people do not have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies.  There is nothing in any Charter or Declaration or Bill that gives people that much freedom over themselves.  You may wish people had the right to do whatever they want, but legally speaking, people do not.  

It's called prison labour and is essentially the new form of slavery and is absolutely disgusting in this day and age. And yes people will still die from impure drugs just at a signifigantly reduced rate. 

And I don't believe that people whould be able to do whatever they want and saying so is completely absurd and an outright lie. Im saying that if people want to do something that only directly harms themselves such as drugs they should be allowed to as it is no business of yours and a violation of privacy. Deny these people organ and blood donations if you wish but let them make their own decisions rather than locking them in prison. Prison of course being such a great place to get off drugs.

Drug abuse currently costs American society 181 billion dollars annually due to health care costs, crime and lost productivity.  Alcohol costs 185 billion.  The current amount spent by the US government to fight the war on drugs this year is at about 30 billion.  The cost to American society will likely be far higher than that if drug prohibition ends; the amount lost in health care costs dwarfs that lost as a result of crime.  Statistically speaking, that trillion dollars you speak of is well spent.

Well then don't provide them will healthcare when it comes to drug related problems and problem solved when it comes to cost. If someone wants to risk their health they can either pay higher premiums on their insurance or go without. I don't understand why you think people should not be allowed to decide for themselves.

Also 30 billion a year? For drug enforcement alone that is a considerable understatement and just take a look at the prison population and how many of them are in for drug related offences

At the end of the day its costly, pointless and a violation of a person's right to treat their body how they decide.



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

Around the Network
DeadNotSleeping said:
snyps said:


None of that happened after alchohol prohibition ended in 1933. What makes this different?

-There are more alcohol addicts per capita post-1933 than prohibition-era.
-Alcoholism has had a massive burden on health care, organ donation eligibility.  Drugs do the same.
-Alcohol consumption has resulted in more accidents and has been a precurser to more violent and/or sexual crimes than there was during the prohibition.
-Alcohol has almost no effect on blood donation as it is easily purged from the bloodstream, but drugs remain present longer and have a more pronounced effect on organs that affect the properties on one's blood.
-Racketeering and smuggling was rampant in that time, though I owe that more to deficiencies in the investigative techniques and technologies of those times.  
-Average lifespan has since increased since 1933; largely due to antibiotics and vaccines--neither of which are effective against organ damage drugs are responsible for.  A greater accessibility to drugs results in increased use which results in adverse health effects.  This has occurred with alcohol post-1933. So it shouldn't be different with drugs.
-When criminal organizations are denied sources of revenue, they invariably try to find it through alternative means, starting with an increased effort in their other activities.  This happens everywhere.  If drugs are part of their revenue, they will behave accordingly. 
-Fetal Alcohol Syndrome has since increased since 1933. This condition impairs one to moderate anger--such persons are far more likely to go to prison for violent or sexual crimes.  Similar conditions emerge when drugs are taken during pregnancy.
-The end of the prohibition era had the US aligning itself legally nearly equally to its neighboring countries.  If the US ended drug prohibition but Canada does not, the Canadian government will tighten its borders, and this means that the US will do the same.
-Dry counties still exist in the US.  When persons from said counties go to areas without prohibition, their alcohol intake increases on average.  Greater accessibility and less legal ramifications results in increased use.  This is reflected in insurance policies.  DUI offenses increase insurance rates across the board; with more people doing drugs, even the perceived increase of risk in certain age groups will result in higher insurance premiums.
-Those most likely to indulge in the increased availabity of drugs are those in their teens and twenties; since drugs have a measurably adverse effect on one's mental function (memory and problem solving in particular), average grades will predictably decrease and the average national IQ will reflect this.

 

 

In short, a lot of this happened after prohibition-era 1933, so there is little reason why it will be different.



The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure.

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Prohibition led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition--most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that much stronger

[]See Mark Thornton, The Economics of Prohibition (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1991, forthcoming).


-since you are incorrect about increase/decrease of alcoholism in and around 1920-33 this [organ donation] point is inconsequential.
--since you are incorrect about increase/decrease of alcoholism in and around 1920-33 this [drunk driving/sex/violence] point is inconsequential.
-synthetic drugs like meth leave the system within 24-48 hours, natural drugs in the blood system stay longer. Regardless, you are talking about blood donation! I'm talking about trillions of dollars, the bill of rights, and the sanity of our police officers.
-Racketeering was a result of prohibition. I don't understand what you mean. I'm missing something.
-since you are incorrect about increase/decrease of alcoholism in and around 1920-33 this [organ damage] point is inconsequential.
-greater accessibility to drugs does not result in increased use. You have thus far failed to show it happened post 1933.
-Criminal organisations only exist because there is opportunity to get easy money. Let them find other work, criminal or not. Get them out of the drug business!
-Fetal Alcohol Syndrome has since increased since 1933 was first observed in 1968. Now i think you are just making stuff up.
-i think we can conclude that you need to provide a reliable source for your information. Especially in relation to increase/decrease of alcoholism in and around 1920-33.


i have better sources than this one but i'm saving em' for when it counts.



badgenome said:
snyps said:

If you want a drink of alcohol, would you rather go to a tavern/store? Or Billy Bob's shack in the back? I'm sure opium users would rather go to a legal opium den than a abandoned house in crack alley. Don't you think?

Perhaps. But when people are generally trying to sell drug legalization, they say, "Tax and regulate that shit!" If the taxes are too high or the regulation is too strict, and there's already a well developed black market in place, nothing much will change.

Also, regulation generally means some kind of age limit. So underaged users will still need to avail themselves of the black market.


Yep... and half of the worst drugs are so fucking cheap that the black market would still end up being a huge thing... unless people are cool with cocaine and Meth that's cheaper than cigarretes.



snyps said:

Prohibition

How many people got a picture of a big black car, chicago, al capon, and a thompson submachine gun?
Anybody?  How many other thought when you hear that "that doesn't work"?
Isn't that what we learned in USA between 1920-1933 Prohibition doesn't work, that's why we ended it.
Well that is the description of the policy we live under today, in America, when it comes to drugs.


We didn't have an illegal drug in this country until 1914(same year we got an income tax and a federal reserve).When we passed the Harrison anti-drug act.


The Government said, "We have 1.3% of the people in this country addicted to drugs. We can't.. We can't have that right?"
So they passed this law. Now you fast forward 56 years to 1970. The beginning of the War on Drugs.
In 1970, the Government said, "1.3% of the population is addicted to drugs.We can't have it, we gotta start a war on drugs."
36 years later, a trillion dollars, and all these lives lost. 1.3% of the population is addicted to drugs.


LEAP Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

 

Now think about a random city in USA. Canton Ohio. All I know is this place went downhill due to crime and the police force has gone insane.
Cops Attack and Strip Naked innocent woman
Dash Cam: Canton PD "Notification" Arrest & Officer Goes Berserk
Canton Ohio Police Officer-- Daniel Harless Playing Games
Canton Ohio Swat team murder and coverup
CANTON BUSINESS MIKE MYERS ON LACK OF CANTON POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE

I believe it's fair to consider that our american police would be less edgy if drug money was not going into the pockets of gangsters and killers. I believe this town and all others will be a more peaceful place to live once we end the war on drugs. What do you think?

Sorry for the off topic but I have to say something

America is a continent. I know it is just your, and many other people talking habit, but you should try to stop it. It's embarrasing for all the people living in the 34 countries that form America when you claim something that applies to the USA. 

 

SIncerely,

 

a random dude in Norway, Europe.



Mexican drug cartels will be stopped in their tracks. Significantly reducing the murder rate in Mexico, and giving that country a chance to fight against corruption. Lower crime and lower corruption = better prospects for growth. Better prospects for growth = fewer fleeing Mexicans = fewer illegal immigrants in the USA = less money spent by the Feds on border security and customs/immigration.

Many terrorist organisations in the Middle-East use heroin proceeds for their funding. Eliminate or reduce that profit stream means less money for them, and so fewer resources. Stability in the Middle East just become a lot more easy.

Marijuana is showing to have more and more medical benefits. This massively reduces healthcare costs for those afflictions, and tend to have fewer side effects than the regular medication. Hemp, too, can be used to produce many things - paper, rope, plastics, shampoos, clothing, etc. Some of these products can be created using hemp in a far more environmentally-friendly manner (and for cheap), than the current legal means.

More people are arrested in the USA each year than for all violent crimes. A person is arrested on a drug charge every 19 seconds in America. Meanwhile, the vast majority of burglaries, murders, and rapes go unsolved. Not only will legalizing drugs reduce the murder/burglary rates, but there will be a higher allocation of resources towards solving these things, now that drug crime is off the budget books.

People's futures will also stop being ruined. Oh, right, you're smoking pot. That's bad for you. To help you, I'm going to throw you in a rape cage for X amount of years, and put a permanent black mark against your name so that when you get out, it'll be harder for you to find a job. You really think if Obama had been caught under the drug laws he enforces - for his weed and coke as a teen - he'd be sitting the President's chair right now? You really think a man who's served time in prison would be able to win an election?



Around the Network
FrancisNobleman said:

Sorry for the off topic but I have to say something

America is a continent. I know it is just your, and many other people talking habit, but you should try to stop it. It's embarrasing for all the people living in the 34 countries that form America when you claim something that applies to the USA. 

 

SIncerely,

 

a random dude in Norway, Europe.

America is two geologically distinct continents, actually, but there is only one country with America in its name. I know this grinds some people's gears and they expect 300 some odd million Americans to stop referring to themselves as Americans and embrace some stupid term like USAians, but it ain't gonna happen and you should try to stop insisting that they should.

No disrespect intended to you, random dude from Norway, Eurasia.



FrancisNobleman said:
 

Sorry for the off topic but I have to say something

America is a continent. I know it is just your, and many other people talking habit, but you should try to stop it. It's embarrasing for all the people living in the 34 countries that form America when you claim something that applies to the USA. 

 

SIncerely,

 

a random dude in Norway, Europe.

No it isn't...

The "Americas" are two different continents.

The only one that's embarrising themselves are the countries that still teach the outdated unfactual systems.

There are two scientificly accepted geographic models internationally when it comes to the sceinces.


First, when it comes to Geology and Geography, there is the 6 continent "Eurasia" model.    If you look at what makes up a continent physically and geographically, you may be surprised to find out... Europe Isn't a continent.

Secondly, when it comes to political scientists, you have the 7 continent makeup.

 

So, hard sciences you have a 6 continent model where you are part of Eurasia, and soft sciecnes a 7 continent model.

There is no such "America".   Except for the "United States of".

 

Not to mention,  it's possible for things to have two names.   The Democratic Republica of Congo and the Republic of the Congo are both...  The congo.

One isn't "The Democratic Republic of" or the "DRC" that's just stupid.



Kasz216 said:


Yep... and half of the worst drugs are so fucking cheap that the black market would still end up being a huge thing... unless people are cool with cocaine and Meth that's cheaper than cigarretes.

How much cheaper would the black market have to be for most people to want to interact with them? With the black market, you have no guarantee that the product is what you think it is, you have to deal with criminals, and you have no idea if you're even going to wake up with your organs. Not to mention the fear of being arrested

The players in the black market will either have to change their game - that is, reduce the imposed risk for potential buyers, or they will have to compete by rapidly dropping the price. Diminishing profits and, therefore, the incentives to play.

Either way, the introduction of a legal market will reduce the size - and violence - of the black market. The fewer the restrictions on the market, the smaller the black market.

How much share of the weed market do the "bad guys" have in Colorado and Washington today? What share will they have in 12 months, and what share in 5 years?



I know what i would do. Throw the worlds biggest block party.



 

SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:

How much cheaper would the black market have to be for most people to want to interact with them? With the black market, you have no guarantee that the product is what you think it is, you have to deal with criminals, and you have no idea if you're even going to wake up with your organs. Not to mention the fear of being arrested

The players in the black market will either have to change their game - that is, reduce the imposed risk for potential buyers, or they will have to compete by rapidly dropping the price. Diminishing profits and, therefore, the incentives to play.

Either way, the introduction of a legal market will reduce the size - and violence - of the black market. The fewer the restrictions on the market, the smaller the black market.

How much share of the weed market do the "bad guys" have in Colorado and Washington today? What share will they have in 12 months, and what share in 5 years?

Well first off... weed is a low profit margin drug.   The only reason drug dealers deal with it is because it's steady.

You get high trafic and a lot of connections, and the police don't really care about weed.


As for the numbers... I imagine they don't exist yet.  Ciggarrettes though, i've seen numbers for.  Though not in the US, for the UK.   In the UK about 20% of the market is illegally smuggled ciggarrettes... and that's just smuggling brand specific kinds of cigarrettes from low tax countries to high tax countries!

Since Tobbacco's high is mosly fictional, brand loyalties develop pretty strongly.  This won't be the case for the hardest drugs.  Weed will develop strong brand loyalty.... Coke?  Meth?  Not a chance.

 

Now something like Cocaine costs $2 a gram to make pure.   Then is sold for upwards to $200 AFTER having all kinds of additives and shit put into it.

Will people really be cool with $4-5 dollar grams of Coke that used to cost the average person $200 dollars.

Severely addicted cokeheads and crackheads would be burning themselves out on legal product left and right

 

 

And THAT isn't even taking into account regulations.   Much like alchohol you can bet that drugs will have a "Purity limit". 

It could even be set so low that "Legal" cocaine would be equal to the lowest level $20 a gram junk.

Although it'd only be "equal" to that if drug companies are aloud to mix it with other cheaper "uppers" something that seems unlikely.

So the street product will always be superior.

Either way, if they impose purity limits long term addicts or just those who like the better purity are just going to go to the streets for the high level stuff, since the amount of legal product you'd have to use would be ridiculious to get you high.   Not to mention what THAT shit will be cut with when it comes to negative effects.

 

As for what drug dealers cut there stuff with... Drug dealers operate in a much more free market then buisnesses, there is all kind of competition and they want repeat customers so they're actually usually pretty straight up with people.  Drug dealers are generally extremely nice guys unless you repeatidly screw them over in large ways.

 

I'm for drug legalization but if everyone thinks it's going to be all sunshine and unicorn farts,they're wrong... and it's that kind of attitude and false expectations that could cause drug legalization to be reversed.