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.
