Alcohol Prohibition - Should we bring it back?

[NewtonTrino]

In the thread about making drugs illegal we have started talking about alcohol prohibition, especially in the early 20th century in the US.

It seems to me that most people would agree that we are better off now than we were during that period in terms of things like gang wars and people dying from poisoned alcohol etc.

So does anyone here think we should make it illegal again? Does anyone have a good working knowledge of the before/after and current state of this?

[dudalb]

No insult meant but........

There are lots of books and websites that discuss the history and aftermath of Prohibition.
THey are not hard to find.


As for bringing Prohibition back, this guy thinks it's a GREAT idea:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_188404b8837a8347ac.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19245)

[Fiona]

What do you mean, "again"? :confused:

[Skeptical Greg]

Why do they call it ' re-entry ' when the space shuttle returns ? :confused:

[NewtonTrino]

What do you mean, "again"? :confused:

This is going over my head. Let me clarify.

I think prohibition was a really really bad idea. I feel like this is the "standard" sentiment of most people. Am I right?

[Professor Yaffle]

I think (and she can correct me if I am incorrect) that Fiona was just pointing out that not everyone lives in a country where alcohol has been prohibited in the past.

[NewtonTrino]

Well I did specifically call out the US. But sure, I'm happy for people to talk about their countries as well and how it would effect them.

[paximperium]

No. I would have no issue with greater taxation to help fund the the ill effects of it.

[Skeptical Greg]

I think (and she can correct me if I am incorrect) that Fiona was just pointing out that not everyone lives in a country where alcohol has been prohibited in the past.Actually, ' bringing it back again ' implies it has already been done more than once..

But that may not be what Fiona was referring to ..

[Fiona]

Well Prof Yaffle is correct, but I was being a bit flippant. Sorry.
I did not really know that anyone thought alcohol prohibition was a good idea: though I suppose it follows they must cos some think drug prohibition is. I better shut up now :)

[NewtonTrino]

Well Prof Yaffle is correct, but I was being a bit flippant. Sorry.
I did not really know that anyone thought alcohol prohibition was a good idea: though I suppose it follows they must cos some think drug prohibition is. I better shut up now :)

The reason I started this thread is that the discussion in another thread was turning in this direction. Best to get his beast out of the way before getting to other drugs.

[NewtonTrino]

Does anyone thinking bringing it back would be a good idea? (or doing it in the first place if you live in such an enlightened place)

[SRW]

Correct me if I am wrong but to my knowledge the possession and use of alcoholic beverages was never illegal, except possibly in some states or counties. Only the production and sale were prohibited. IMHO the current possession laws are much worse as it make criminals out of even the most casual of users.

[NewtonTrino]

Correct me if I am wrong but to my knowledge the possession and use of alcoholic beverages was never illegal, except possibly in some states or counties. Only the production and sale were prohibited. IMHO the current possession laws are much worse as it make criminals out of even the most casual of users.

So you are in favor or not in favor? I'm guessing not in favor?

[Skeptical Greg]

Correct me if I am wrong but to my knowledge the possession and use of alcoholic beverages was never illegal, except possibly in some states or counties. Only the production and sale were prohibited. IMHO the current possession laws are much worse as it make criminals out of even the most casual of users.
Actually the production wasn't prohibited either.. ( by the 18th amendment )
Only the sale and transportation ..



( No, I would not be in favor of bringing it back ..

[Ohforf]

The Problem with Prohibition is the lousy Quality of Illegal Drugs.
Who wants to pay lots of Money for Booze that is cut with car fuel and makes you blind as a Bonus ?
In my opinion, all Drugs should be legal for Adults, just for the safety of the Consumers.
It's not the Job of the Government to protect Citizens from doing something stupid and harming (only) themselves.
In other words, to hell with the nanny state and hooray for Drugs. :alc:

[Fiona]

The Problem with Prohibition is the lousy Quality of Illegal Drugs.
Who wants to pay lots of Money for Booze that is cut with car fuel and makes you blind as a Bonus ?
In my opinion, all Drugs should be legal for Adults, just for the safety of the Consumers.
It's not the Job of the Government to protect Citizens from doing something stupid and harming (only) themselves.
In other words, to hell with the nanny state and hooray for Drugs. :alc:


It seems to me that this post is a little self contradictory. The only reason you give for legalising drugs is that they will be safer: the only way that can be true is through regulation: and that can only be done through law made by government and enforced by government. In other words hooray for the nanny state and horray for drugs :)

[Ohforf]

It seems to me that this post is a little self contradictory. The only reason you give for legalising drugs is that they will be safer: the only way that can be true is through regulation: and that can only be done through law made by government and enforced by government. In other words hooray for the nanny state and horray for drugs :)
There is nothing wrong about Government regulations for the purity of Food/Drinks/Tobacco/Drugs.
If you know the black market, you know many substances sold there are cut with toxic substances.
Alcohol containing Methanol, Heroine mixed with Strychnine... its basically the same Problem.

[Mirrorglass]

The reason I started this thread is that the discussion in another thread was turning in this direction. Best to get his beast out of the way before getting to other drugs.

In case you're waiting, I'm not going to jump in and start defending the prohibition.

Nevertheless, I'd also be curious to hear about what exactly prohibition did do to society and what changed once it ended, if anyone happens to have accurate knowledge.

[NewtonTrino]

Not really. A private organization could give it's seal of approval to drug quality. The consumer would still have to beware though.

I'd be perfectly happy buying bundles of weed at the farmers market without government intervention as well. It's not like inspect all of the cherries, apples etc that I buy anyway.

[Delscottio]

If there was any way to actually prohibit the usage of the stuff completely then yeah I would support banning drink, but that will never happen. So I would prefer to put significantly higher duties on booze to pay for the problems it brings to our society.

The above applies to any drug which leads to addiction / anti social behaviour.

[Ohforf]

If there was any way to actually prohibit the usage of the stuff completely then yeah I would support banning drink, but that will never happen. So I would prefer to put significantly higher duties on booze to pay for the problems it brings to our society.

The above applies to any drug which leads to addiction / anti social behaviour.

That's a very important point : the use of "Psychoactive Substances"
is almost as old as humanity itself... and many People will not stop doing something, only because its illegal.
Higher Duties lead, of course, to more smuggeling / illegal production.

[Bikewer]

We can essentially credit Prohibition with the rise of organized crime. On the other hand, the annual costs of alcohol abuse per year are....Enormous. At least 175 billion according to this site:
http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/health_care_costs.htm

That includes everything; lost work hours, accidents, etc.

Obviously, the across-the-board prohibition of drugs has resulted in...Essentially nothing.
Billions spent for little or no return save for the largest imprisoned population of any industrialized country. And the formation of drug cartels that threaten the very government in Mexico....
At some point, we are going to have to address the other part of the equation...Demand.

[commandlinegamer]

From the point of view of being able to watch the chaos which ensues, I'd love them to make it illegal again. But reality check says there's enough stupid in the world already.

[TraneWreck]

No.

I want to continue to have irresponsible sex. Alcohol really helps.

[Bob Klase]

Correct me if I am wrong but to my knowledge the possession and use of alcoholic beverages was never illegal, except possibly in some states or counties. Only the production and sale were prohibited.

Actually the production wasn't prohibited either.. ( by the 18th amendment )
Only the sale and transportation ..

Actually it was all three- production (manufacture), sale, and transportation.

Amendment XVIII
1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

[novaphile]

Alcohol abuse seems to be the problem, rather than alcohol consumption per se.

More consistent enforcement of existing laws about not serving alcohol to patrons who are drinking too much is probably a better idea...

[NewtonTrino]

Alcohol abuse seems to be the problem, rather than alcohol consumption per se.

More consistent enforcement of existing laws about not serving alcohol to patrons who are drinking too much is probably a better idea...

Why? Why not just ban it outright?

[Thunder]

i only drink red wine and beer, so what do i care.

[Travis]

When I was in college I was part of a pro-prohibition group, believe it or not. This was also when I was trying to get Fraternities banned.

Strangely part of my reasoning at the time was that if it was banned the available stuff would likely be more dangerous and would kill a lot of people that would try and use it and.....at the time I thought that was a good thing. :boggled:

Of course I was a very bitter/angry young man in those days that just hated all those college parties I always saw.

So perhaps this can serve as a data point on the mind set of some pro-prohibition people.....and yes there are some out there.

[slingblade]

Why? Why not just ban it outright?

We did that. It had a lot of unintended consequences, and didn't really accomplish what it was intended to accomplish.

If it had worked, we wouldn't have repealed it, would we? So why would we make the same mistake twice?

[INRM]

I think it would be a very bad idea to bring back prohibition...

I think anybody with a reasonable knowledge of history can explain why

[NewtonTrino]

We did that. It had a lot of unintended consequences, and didn't really accomplish what it was intended to accomplish.

If it had worked, we wouldn't have repealed it, would we? So why would we make the same mistake twice?

I agree with you on this argument. But what specifically was so bad about it?

[NewtonTrino]

When I was in college I was part of a pro-prohibition group, believe it or not. This was also when I was trying to get Fraternities banned.

Strangely part of my reasoning at the time was that if it was banned the available stuff would likely be more dangerous and would kill a lot of people that would try and use it and.....at the time I thought that was a good thing. :boggled:

Of course I was a very bitter/angry young man in those days that just hated all those college parties I always saw.

So perhaps this can serve as a data point on the mind set of some pro-prohibition people.....and yes there are some out there.

This reminds me of someone I was arguing with on another thread ;)

[slingblade]

I agree with you on this argument. But what specifically was so bad about it?

Prohibition failed because it was unenforceable. By 1925, half a dozen states, including New York, passed laws banning local police from investigating violations. Prohibition had little support in the cities of the Northeast and Midwest.

Prohibition did briefly pay some public health dividends. The death rate from alcoholism was cut by 80 percent by 1921 from pre-war levels, while alcohol-related crime dropped markedly. Nevertheless, seven years after Prohibition went into effect, the total deaths from adulterated liquor reached approximately 50,000, and there were many more cases of blindness and paralysis. According to one story, a potential buyer who sent a liquor sample to a laboratory for analysis was shocked when a chemist replied: "Your horse has diabetes."

Prohibition quickly produced bootleggers, speakeasies, moonshine, bathtub gin, and rum runners smuggling supplies of alcohol across state lines. In 1927, there were an estimated 30,000 illegal speakeasies--twice the number of legal bars before Prohibition. Many people made beer and wine at home. It was relatively easy finding a doctor to sign a prescription for medicinal whiskey sold at drugstores.

In 1919, a year before Prohibition went into effect, Cleveland had 1,200 legal bars. By 1923, the city had an estimated 3,000 illegal speakeasies, along with 10,000 stills. An estimated 30,000 city residents sold liquor during Prohibition, and another 100,000 made home brew or bathtub gin for themselves and friends.

Prohibition also fostered corruption and contempt for law and law enforcement among large segments of the population. Harry Daughtery, attorney general under Warren Harding, accepted bribes from bootleggers. George Remus, a Cincinnati bootlegger, had a thousand salesmen on his payroll, many of them police officers. He estimated that half his receipts went as bribes. Al Capone's Chicago organization reportedly took in $60 million in 1927 and had half the city's police on its payroll.

...and so on, here:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=441

[NewtonTrino]

...and so on, here:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=441

Where's mirrorglass when you need him.

So some of the problems:
- causes public corruption
- tainted liquor
- causes disrespect for law in general
- only lawful citizen effects, everyone else can get the stuff easily so it's not effective

good side:
- less people drinking overall (?)

[slingblade]

Where's mirrorglass when you need him.

So some of the problems:
- causes public corruption
- tainted liquor
- causes disrespect for law in general
- only lawful citizen effects, everyone else can get the stuff easily so it's not effective

Pretty much, maybe a bit simplistic, but touches on the basic points, I'd say.

good side:
- less people drinking overall (?)

Not when I see in that article that: "In 1927, there were an estimated 30,000 illegal speakeasies--twice the number of legal bars before Prohibition. "

That doesn't sound like "less" to me. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sure sounds like "more."

Besides, people who don't drink don't need laws to prohibit drinking. They don't drink. People who do drink...well, some might stop because of the law, but those who want it will get it somehow, and it won't be regulated so it won't be safe.

And as the article (in full, it may not be in the part I quoted) said, there are people who drink as part of their cultures, and as part of their religious customs. It would be discriminatory, and against the Constitution's free expression of religion, to prohibit them consuming alcohol.

This is not to say I have any answers. I don't. But Prohibition is known as The Failed Experiment for good reasons. I don't think it's the answer to the societal ills it's intended to cure.

[Skeptical Greg]

good side:
- less people drinking overall (?)
Cite ?

[Travis]

That so many people went to so much trouble to get booze during prohibition has always mystified me since I've always hated the taste and smell of all beer/booze. Especially beer. The mere smell of it causes intense nausea and this sucks because it means I have to avoid things like ballparks.

[slingblade]

That so many people went to so much trouble to get booze during prohibition has always mystified me since I've always hated the taste and smell of all beer/booze. Especially beer. The mere smell of it causes intense nausea and this sucks because it means I have to avoid things like ballparks.

I don't understand why you'd be mystified. The taste and smell of alcohol doesn't have that effect on most people, so they don't have to avoid it, and can even seek it out.
Mystery solved. :p


...and wait just a minute...no you don't! You started the "Seriously ladies, when you are in a bar DON'T DO THIS!" thread, so it doesn't sound like you avoid bars, and I happen to know most bars serve a little alcohol now and then.

[NewtonTrino]

Cite ?

This was posted in our drug thread.

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ajph.org%2Fcgi%2 Freprint%2F65%2F12%2F1279.pdf&images=yes

[NewtonTrino]

That so many people went to so much trouble to get booze during prohibition has always mystified me since I've always hated the taste and smell of all beer/booze. Especially beer. The mere smell of it causes intense nausea and this sucks because it means I have to avoid things like ballparks.

Interesting. Do you use any other drugs? Or do they all cause a reaction like this?

I've certainly met people that never acquired the taste for booze (my dad for instance) but I don't know anyone allergic to it.

[Beth]

About 20 years ago, I worked with a man who had been 16 when prohibition ended. He said it made booze much harder for him to obtain. When it was illegal for everyone, he could buy from any bootlegger around. When it was legal for adults, he had to manage to get to another county to find a liquor store that didn't check ID's and would sell to an underage teen.

Applying this to drug prohibition, it might well be easier to prevent teens from getting drugs if they were legal for adults.

[dtugg]

About 20 years ago, I worked with a man who had been 16 when prohibition ended. He said it made booze much harder for him to obtain. When it was illegal for everyone, he could buy from any bootlegger around. When it was legal for adults, he had to manage to get to another county to find a liquor store that didn't check ID's and would sell to an underage teen.

Applying this to drug prohibition, it might well be easier to prevent teens from getting drugs if they were legal for adults.

This is a good point. Before I turned 21 it was easier for me to get certain drugs than to get alcohol. To get the drugs, I just needed to call a dealer, to get alcohol I needed to find someone old enough to buy it and willing to do so.

[luchog]

This is a good point. Before I turned 21 it was easier for me to get certain drugs than to get alcohol. To get the drugs, I just needed to call a dealer, to get alcohol I needed to find someone old enough to buy it and willing to do so.

I never had that problem. The same people who were happy to sell me drugs, would also happily buy me a pint of vodka to go with; assuming they were old enough.

[plumjam]

Prohibition? I'll drink to that!

[Uncayimmy]

Right now, we don't have liquor store owners shooting other liquor store owners over turf. Same with alcohol makers and distributors. We don't see pharmacists shooting each other either.

So, yes, let's bring back prohibition. We could use the entertainment.

[Redtail]

I never had that problem. The same people who were happy to sell me drugs, would also happily buy me a pint of vodka to go with; assuming they were old enough.

I grew up in a "football town" and got bumped to Varsity in the 9th grade. Regular season I could get a 5th of whatever every Friday, a handle when we beat a big rival, cases or kegs after a win in the playoffs. According to kids who are there now, (I have friends that have kids who are playing varsity.)
a state championship is worth free (cheap to middling) booze for life.

As far as bringing back prohibition, we already have the mafia and gangs, why create more?

[timhau]

So some of the problems:
- causes public corruption
- tainted liquor
- causes disrespect for law in general
- only lawful citizen effects, everyone else can get the stuff easily so it's not effective

Yeah. Along with the US, Finland is one of the few western nations to try prohibition, and we got all those problems too. We also had booze barons who made money hand over fist by smuggling in cheap booze (mostly pure alcohol) from Sweden and Estonia.

good side:
- less people drinking overall (?)

No. The numbers from our prohibition period don't exist, but the nation actually consumed way more alcohol per capita after prohibition than before. It also steered consumption heavily towards the strong stuff (probably because smuggling pure alcohol is so much easier than smuggling beer or wine).

[Delvo]

People took the wrong lesson from prohibition's "failure". It didn't work early on because it was underenforced because of restrictions on the weapons & tactics the police could use. After those were lifted and the police were allowed to catch up to the 20th century like the criminals already had, the repeal of prohibition was an ironic delayed reaction that took place after it had started working.

The meaning of this isn't that you can't control drug use; it's that if you're going to do so, you need to actually try, not just write some words in a law book and sit back. It's the same as with not only other drugs, but also some other laws that are only routinely broken because they either can't be enforced or just aren't being enforced by choice (due to laziness, squeamishness, or whatever else), such as automotive "speeding" and immigration from Mexico. It's also the same with military action: give them the equipment the mission calls for and the freedom to use it, and they can succeed; tie their hands and you're setting them up for failure.

[Bikewer]

Compared to drugs, illicit liquor is remarkably difficult to manufacture, transport, and hide. It's bulky, requires an almost-industrial scale manufacturing capability to produce in any quantity, and can only be transported in rather bulky containers.
Yet the bootleggers managed without much trouble.
Again, the law did not address the actual problem...Demand.

Sure, it would be possible to set up a police state and spend many billions to prohibit liquor....(much as we have done with drugs....) Would the vast expense of all this law enforcement, arrests, prosecutions, and incarcerations be worth it?

Is it cheaper just to exercise reasonable controls (age, licencing, etc.) and treat abuse as a public-health problem rather than a crime? Would the results overall be any different?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

This is a good point. Before I turned 21 it was easier for me to get certain drugs than to get alcohol. To get the drugs, I just needed to call a dealer, to get alcohol I needed to find someone old enough to buy it and willing to do so.

agreed. My friends and I in college would talk about that a lot, how it was easier to score drugs than alcohol.

[timhau]

Compared to drugs, illicit liquor is remarkably difficult to manufacture, transport, and hide. It's bulky, requires an almost-industrial scale manufacturing capability to produce in any quantity

Not really. It isn't that tough to manufacture drinks made through fermentation for your own consumption (provided you're not looking to get smashed daily); it's a lot of busywork, but you can do it without turning your house into a brewery. Small moonshine workshops that kept their owner-operators supplied used to be not uncommon in rural Finland (even during the time they were illegal).

[Beth]

Yeah. Along with the US, Finland is one of the few western nations to try prohibition, and we got all those problems too. We also had booze barons who made money hand over fist by smuggling in cheap booze (mostly pure alcohol) from Sweden and Estonia.



No. The numbers from our prohibition period don't exist, but the nation actually consumed way more alcohol per capita after prohibition than before. It also steered consumption heavily towards the strong stuff (probably because smuggling pure alcohol is so much easier than smuggling beer or wine).

Similarly, drug prohibition steers users toward harder drugs like cocaine or meth rather than pot. Less bulky to smuggle and less likely to be detected by odor. Usage is less likely to be detected in random urine tests as well.

[NewtonTrino]

People took the wrong lesson from prohibition's "failure". It didn't work early on because it was underenforced because of restrictions on the weapons & tactics the police could use. After those were lifted and the police were allowed to catch up to the 20th century like the criminals already had, the repeal of prohibition was an ironic delayed reaction that took place after it had started working.

The meaning of this isn't that you can't control drug use; it's that if you're going to do so, you need to actually try, not just write some words in a law book and sit back. It's the same as with not only other drugs, but also some other laws that are only routinely broken because they either can't be enforced or just aren't being enforced by choice (due to laziness, squeamishness, or whatever else), such as automotive "speeding" and immigration from Mexico. It's also the same with military action: give them the equipment the mission calls for and the freedom to use it, and they can succeed; tie their hands and you're setting them up for failure.

Fascinating. This is the type of response I was hoping for in this thread.

So are you of the opinion that we should bring it back? Or are you just saying that it could have worked better? Do you have any proof that the problems were as you described them above?

[slingblade]

Saying that it didn't work because it wasn't properply enforced is correct, but it isn't the whole story. I didn't take the wrong lesson from it, thanks. I took from it that it failed for various reasons, and lack of enforcement was only one. It was significant, but I don't know that it was the main reason.

I'm thinking how many people there are here now, compared to 1920, and I'm thinking anyone who tried to tell Americans it was against the law to have a beer would find himself lynched. That's just my 'umble opinion, though. But I don't see it happening, or being workable if it did happen.

From a legal standpoint, what a nightmare. Where you gonna house all these lawbreakers?

[NewtonTrino]

Saying that it didn't work because it wasn't properply enforced is correct, but it isn't the whole story. I didn't take the wrong lesson from it, thanks. I took from it that it failed for various reasons, and lack of enforcement was only one. It was significant, but I don't know that it was the main reason.

I'm thinking how many people there are here now, compared to 1920, and I'm thinking anyone who tried to tell Americans it was against the law to have a beer would find himself lynched. That's just my 'umble opinion, though. But I don't see it happening, or being workable if it did happen.

From a legal standpoint, what a nightmare. Where you gonna house all these lawbreakers?

I think you're right. I'm curious why the same thing doesn't apply for the rest of our rights though.

[Mr.D]

What about the economic impact of shutting down the industry?

We're talking about everything from farming, R&D, manufacturing, distributing, advertising and sales. From Walmart all the way down to that little Mom & Pop store on the corner. There would be a side-effect on the Sports, Entertainment and Restaurant industries. Where would all those jobs (especially the low-skill and part-time) go?

And that's only the domestic economy.*

It's and interesting intellectual exercise and can make for an great conversation and debate, but it'll never happen for practical reasons.




*(Side note: That's IMHO where the pro-legalization folks usually go wrong trying to make an analogy between alcohol and legalized drugs - there's a worldwide legal economy for booze)

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Delvo seems to be saying that if the police didn't have to worry about all those pesky constitutional rights getting in the way, they could be much more effective at their jobs. It might be true, but do we really want that?

[NewtonTrino]

*(Side note: That's IMHO where the pro-legalization folks usually go wrong trying to make an analogy between alcohol and legalized drugs - there's a worldwide legal economy for booze)

There's already a worldwide economy for these other drugs as well. For example there are hundreds of grow stores in BC that would probably go out of business if grow ups were legit larger commercial farms.

And of course the billions in drug cartel profits are going somewhere as well...

I'm not really sure where the analogy breaks down, they are slightly different but there isn't much different between booze and pot really.

[SeanDamnit]

It seems almost unanimous in the conversation thus far that alcohol prohibition was a bad idea. From making bad guys rich, to concerns over the safety of the unregulated black market of the product, to concerns as to where we'd put all the offenders, to how harmful it would be to the domestic economy to remove the industry.

Now what I would find interesting -- and I'd imagine this is what the OP was getting at as well -- is whether or not everyone that agreed prohibition of alcohol is bad would agree that the current prohibition of other recreational drugs is just as bad.

In my view, every problem the US and other countries had with alcohol prohibition is almost exactly what we're seeing with Marijuana, for example. Problem is that the drug has almost always been illegal, so we don't have a time period to compare it to and say whether or not prohibition made things better or worse. The drug trade making drug barons rich, full prison systems, etc have just always been there...

[Fiona]

Problem is that the drug has almost always been illegal, so we don't have a time period to compare it to and say whether or not prohibition made things better or worse. The drug trade making drug barons rich, full prison systems, etc have just always been there...

That is not actually true. Marijuana was legal in the united states until the early part of the last century and it was not regulated in every state till 1927. It seems to me that the time was ripe for this kind of legislation because it is also around the period of alcohol prohibition in the USA. But it was not made fully illegal till much later (arguably 1937, but it is possible to make a case that it was not until the late 1950's because its use for medical and scientific purposes was ok till then)

It was made illegal in the UK in 1925. This was because of a League of Nations convention on control of narcotics which the UK signed. But again its use was controlled,not banned, and medical and scientific use was sanctioned. That continued to be the case till a UN convention was adopted in the early 1960's: a convention which the US also signed, I believe

It is not that we do not have a comparison period: it is rather that cannabis and opiates were not the drug of choice in the USA and UK for most people: the International conventions against it were driven by countries like Egypt, where alcohol is unusual and hash is the intoxicant of choice for many more people: there were economic drivers as well because taxation of hash in places like Bengal was a big source of revenue for the state, as is taxation of alcohol here. So as the drug became more popular in th west (which it did in the 50's and 60's) there were implications for trade: the conventions also allowed medical use even after that: but at the time it was argued that there was no legitimate medical use for it.

There was no mass disobedience as there was for alcohol because people did not use it in great numbers till the latter part of the last century: but that does not mean that the prohibition was not accompanied by the usual horror stories: violence and rape and all the usual suspect consequences were depicted as outcomes of cannabis use and there was little to counter that because so few people had experience. The comparison would have to be done in those countries where it had a status like alcohol and that means the middle east and india and places like that: but of course those didn't really count much when this debate was taking place.

[gumboot]

It's not the Job of the Government to protect Citizens from doing something stupid and harming (only) themselves.


What if it harms others?

[gumboot]

The difference, as I see it, is the cultural significance of the substance in question. Alcohol has been a fundamental part of our culture dating back thousands and thousands of years. Trying to abolish it when it is so deeply ingrained in society is problematic.

Most prohibited recreational drugs cannot claim the same deeply embedded status in our culture, so prohibiting them is much, much easier.

Further, alcohol is mostly consumed in moderation, for the purpose of enjoying the consumption itself. Unless you're talking New Zealand (where binge drinking is alarmingly common), most people don't drink to "get drunk".

In contrast, I cannot think of a single banned recreational drug that is consumed in the same way (marijuana probably comes closest, in some contexts). The entire point of smoking a joint or snorting some cocaine or injecting heroine is to get wasted. The sole objective is to obliterate the user's sense of reality. Often the actual consumption or administering of the drug is unpleasant, even to those who enjoy the substance.

That alone, makes any comparison between alcohol and recreational drugs questionable.

[Mr.D]

I'm not really sure where the analogy breaks down, they are slightly different but there isn't much different between booze and pot really.

I did put the word "legal" in there, and I contend that from an economic point of view, it makes booze and pot very different.

[dtugg]

What if it harms others?

The act of consuming drugs or alcohol doesn't harm anybody but maybe the user. Anybody under the influence of drugs or alcohol that harms other people should be punished just the same as any other criminal.

[dtugg]

I put the "legal" qualifier in there for a reason, and I contend that from an economic point of view, it makes the difference between booze and pot very different.

Yeah, the money spent of booze goes to legitimate businesses. Because some people like to meddle in others' lives, money spent on drugs often goes to violent criminals in other countries (in the USA that would be mostly Mexican drug cartels). That could easily be fixed though if people would listen to reason.

[gumboot]

The act of consuming drugs or alcohol doesn't harm anybody but maybe the user. Anybody under the influence of drugs or alcohol that harms other people should be punished just the same as any other criminal.


The "guilty mind" aspect of criminal liability can cause issues with regards to convicting people of crimes when under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

[NewtonTrino]

The "guilty mind" aspect of criminal liability can cause issues with regards to convicting people of crimes when under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

So some idiots can go out and get drunk, kill some people and you have to take away my liberty to drink because you might not be able to convict the other guy? That's twisted.

[dtugg]

The "guilty mind" aspect of criminal liability can cause issues with regards to convicting people of crimes when under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

I have never heard of anybody successfully using the "I was too wasted to realize what I was doing" defense in the USA. Hell, if that were a legitimate defense, one could argue that DUI isn't even a crime. Perhaps things are different elsewhere.

[gumboot]

So some idiots can go out and get drunk, kill some people and you have to take away my liberty to drink because you might not be able to convict the other guy? That's twisted.

I have never heard of anybody successfully using the "I was too wasted to realize what I was doing" defense in the USA. Hell, if that were a legitimate defense, one could argue that DUI isn't even a crime. Perhaps things are different elsewhere.


I'm thinking more in relation to drugs than alcohol. It has been ruled a legitimate defense in NZ, but in the case of alcohol the defendant has to demonstrate that they were so drunk that they had reached a state of mental impairment comparable with insanity - i.e. a total loss of connection with reality.

That could be relatively easy to prove with the use of some drugs, particularly hallucinogenic ones, but obviously you'd need to be severely drunk to reach the same level with alcohol, and when that drunk most people are incapable of basic motor function, thus incapable of committing such crimes.

For the record I'm not in favour of banning alcohol, but I am less opposed to introducing some sort of law that made being drunk in public illegal - much like having a maximum blood-alcohol level for operating a car, but a second perhaps higher legal threshold for being in a public place (maybe it's already illegal in some countries, I don't know).

The reality is that drunkenness (not alcohol!) is a severe drain on society - in NZ for example it's estimated that over 80% of accidental injuries requiring medical attention are caused by alcohol.

[dtugg]

For the record I'm not in favour of banning alcohol, but I am less opposed to introducing some sort of law that made being drunk in public illegal - much like having a maximum blood-alcohol level for operating a car, but a second perhaps higher legal threshold for being in a public place (maybe it's already illegal in some countries, I don't know).

I think that public intoxication is illegal in most jurisdictions in the USA. There generally isn't a set blood alcohol level that they will arrest you at. Rather, it is at the discretion of the officer and they will usually only arrest you if you're obviously drunk and also acting like a dumbass.

[NewtonTrino]

The difference, as I see it, is the cultural significance of the substance in question. Alcohol has been a fundamental part of our culture dating back thousands and thousands of years. Trying to abolish it when it is so deeply ingrained in society is problematic.

Most prohibited recreational drugs cannot claim the same deeply embedded status in our culture, so prohibiting them is much, much easier.

Then how do you explain the multibillion dollar black market in Marijuana? If nobody uses it there should be no demand. Whether or not American's used it for thousands of years they sure use it now. Of course the US has only been around for a couple of hundred years anyway...


Further, alcohol is mostly consumed in moderation, for the purpose of enjoying the consumption itself. Unless you're talking New Zealand (where binge drinking is alarmingly common), most people don't drink to "get drunk".

In contrast, I cannot think of a single banned recreational drug that is consumed in the same way (marijuana probably comes closest, in some contexts). The entire point of smoking a joint or snorting some cocaine or injecting heroine is to get wasted. The sole objective is to obliterate the user's sense of reality. Often the actual consumption or administering of the drug is unpleasant, even to those who enjoy the substance.

That alone, makes any comparison between alcohol and recreational drugs questionable.

Your assumptions here are BS. I quite enjoy smoking weed. Also I certainly don't get completely blotto from smoking. You are just making stuff up here.

[NewtonTrino]

For the record I'm not in favour of banning alcohol, but I am less opposed to introducing some sort of law that made being drunk in public illegal - much like having a maximum blood-alcohol level for operating a car, but a second perhaps higher legal threshold for being in a public place (maybe it's already illegal in some countries, I don't know).

The reality is that drunkenness (not alcohol!) is a severe drain on society - in NZ for example it's estimated that over 80% of accidental injuries requiring medical attention are caused by alcohol.

If it's such a drain on society why are you not in favor of banning it? Is it possibly because the ban causes worse problems than the drug itself?

[Toke]

The war on drugs is such a stunning success that it should naturally be extended to alcohol. :rolleyes:

The use and abuse of alcohol have a cost to society in both money and ruined lives, I believe it is significantly lower that the cost of enforcing a ban. Same for drugs.

The argument that alcohol is different because it is an integral part of the culture does not hold water when compared with the use of other drugs, if they are used widely they are by definition part of the culture.

Analysis of sewer water can show how widespread cocaine is in a city, today's news showed that it is quite popular in Stockholm.

[gumboot]

Then how do you explain the multibillion dollar black market in Marijuana? If nobody uses it there should be no demand. Whether or not American's used it for thousands of years they sure use it now. Of course the US has only been around for a couple of hundred years anyway...

I didn't say there was no demand. I said it wasn't deeply ingrained in the culture. Which it isn't. (The USA's cultural lineage extends back well beyond the establishment of the state).



Your assumptions here are BS. I quite enjoy smoking weed. Also I certainly don't get completely blotto from smoking. You are just making stuff up here.

Almost everyone I know who smokes, or has smoked weed (and that's virtually everyone I know) did it, or does it, to "get high" and no other reason. How high, exactly, well that varies, hence you'll note I said "marijuana probably comes closest [to being used without the intent of getting wasted], in some contexts". Seriously, learn to read.

[gumboot]

If it's such a drain on society why are you not in favor of banning it? Is it possibly because the ban causes worse problems than the drug itself?

Jesus wept man (or woman)! Learn to read. I said drunkeness was a drain on society, NOT ALCOHOL. And I expressed support for banning public drunkenness.

Congratulations, you reply to two post by me, and manage to mangle both of them. Been smoking lately? ;) (Kidding :))

[NewtonTrino]

I didn't say there was no demand. I said it wasn't deeply ingrained in the culture. Which it isn't. (The USA's cultural lineage extends back well beyond the establishment of the state).


I disagree. How could something that is so pervasive not be considered ingrained? It's a multibillion dollar industry!


Almost everyone I know who smokes, or has smoked weed (and that's virtually everyone I know) did it, or does it, to "get high" and no other reason. How high, exactly, well that varies, hence you'll note I said "marijuana probably comes closest [to being used without the intent of getting wasted], in some contexts". Seriously, learn to read.

Ok, I'm not sure why this matters though.

[NewtonTrino]

Jesus wept man (or woman)! Learn to read. I said drunkeness was a drain on society, NOT ALCOHOL. And I expressed support for banning public drunkenness.

Congratulations, you reply to two post by me, and manage to mangle both of them. Been smoking lately? ;) (Kidding :))

Ok, so what's the argument for keeping weed illegal then?

And actually I do post a lot while high although not today as I'm at the office.

[23_Tauri]

Unless you're talking New Zealand (where binge drinking is alarmingly common), most people don't drink to "get drunk".
Or the UK, where binge-drinking is on the rise despite no changes in the law. This suggests to me it is a social, not a legislative problem, which would not be tackled by changes in the law.

note: although there is no accepted definition of binge drinking, one I have managed to track down is 'the consumption of twice the daily benchmark given in the Government's guidelines'.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/01January/Pages/BingedrinkingBritain.aspx

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=6990

and this report:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/POSTpn244.pdf

BD in the UK has gradually increased over the last decade and has typically been viewed as socially acceptable and a ‘normal’ youth behaviour

[NewtonTrino]

The funny thing is that most of the people who whine about binge drinking would freak out over the idea of legalism pot. Which would IMHO radically reduce drinking, especially in young people.

[richardm]

Or the UK, where binge-drinking is on the rise

I remain unconvinced that it really is on the rise. If they're defining a binge as twice the recommended levels, well, for men that is 3 or 4 pints of beer in a session; for women even less. Two things about this: I don't think many people would regard that as an excessive Friday or Saturday night out, and I don't think they would have regarded it as excessive thirty years ago either.

If they want to argue that people are drinking too much, they really should look at what they're claiming is "too much". Adverts where three women are depicted as disgraceful drunkards because they're finishing off a bottle of wine between them don't seem to be very helpful to sorting out sensible attitudes, because I think most people would look at that and think "Pfft".

[Beerina]

The Problem with Prohibition is the lousy Quality of Illegal Drugs.

George Will points out that the cost of illegal drugs is coming down, and the quality is increasing. This is standard economic evidence that capitalism (competition, specifically) is winning out over prohibition, and that we are thus losing the War on Drugs.

One could argue competition to supply is increasing because people are getting off drugs, but I don't think stats would support that view.

[NewtonTrino]

The quality and quantity of Marijuana available on the west coast has increased radically in the last decade. I think this is mostly because of the medical pot laws which have allowed people to more openly work on improving cultivation. I have several different dealers some of which will even deliver to my house. Price also seems closely correlated to quality so it's classic capitalism delivering the goods.

Prohibition is basically a massive failure. I would have a hard time finding a bigger example of government fail actually.

[Praktik]

Edited, breach of Rules 5 & 10 removed.

[Dr. Keith]

One of the insidious consequences of prohibition was the death of the pub society, a local bar where a community drank together. There was a sharp rise in drinking at home ofter prohibition as compared to before prohibition.

I never stopped by a bar after work on a regular basis, but I like the idea. I think we lose something when we lose such micro communities.

[Mirrorglass]

Hi, I'm back.

Anyway, it was mentioned before, but it's a very important fact that what's dangerous isn't alcohol, but binging (which, by the way, is the norm in places other than New Zealand, and from what I've heard, not really uncommon in UK or the States).

Not only is drinking in moderation not harmful, but it's actually beneficial. It has a clear effect of lessening the risk of cardiovascular disease and thus increasing life expectancy. It would be simply silly to ban this, since it would only lead to people having heart attacks younger, which would be costly to the society and unpleasant to the people as well.

Banning public drunkenness more explicitly would not be a bad idea, but even here I'm inclined to think it's pretty much impossible to enforce.

[SRW]

So you are in favor or not in favor? I'm guessing not in favor?

In favor of making criminals out of casual users of drugs? No, I am not.

[CORed]

Well Prof Yaffle is correct, but I was being a bit flippant. Sorry.
I did not really know that anyone thought alcohol prohibition was a good idea: though I suppose it follows they must cos some think drug prohibition is. I better shut up now :)

There is still a Prohibition Party in the US. They are very small, but they usually field a presidential candidate, and sometimes candidates in gubernatorial or congressional races. I don't think they ever get more than a handful of votes, though.

[CORed]

If there was any way to actually prohibit the usage of the stuff completely then yeah I would support banning drink, but that will never happen. So I would prefer to put significantly higher duties on booze to pay for the problems it brings to our society.

The above applies to any drug which leads to addiction / anti social behaviour.

You can only tax booze so much before you develop a black market to avoid the taxes. There are already some moonshiners in the US, so I don't know that you could raise taxes on alcohol much more without creating a significant black market, which brings with it most of the problems of prohibition.

Making alcohol just isn't that hard. All you need is yeast and a source of sugar. A still if you want the hard stuff. Making alcohol that doesn't taste like paint thinner is a little harder, but not all that hard.

[Praktik]

You can only tax booze so much before you develop a black market to avoid the taxes. There are already some moonshiners in the US, so I don't know that you could raise taxes on alcohol much more without creating a significant black market, which brings with it most of the problems of prohibition.

Same thing happens with tobacco taxes - here in Canada we've had much higher taxes that were rolled back a bit once smuggling spiked enormously...

[sadhatter]

You can only tax booze so much before you develop a black market to avoid the taxes. There are already some moonshiners in the US, so I don't know that you could raise taxes on alcohol much more without creating a significant black market, which brings with it most of the problems of prohibition.

Making alcohol just isn't that hard. All you need is yeast and a source of sugar. A still if you want the hard stuff. Making alcohol that doesn't taste like paint thinner is a little harder, but not all that hard.

You know i found out 2 years ago that there are actually still moonshiners around. I was at a party and the booze ran out, then a quick road trip later we had some nasty crap in a glass jar, we got pretty drunk though.

[NewtonTrino]

When I was in high school I was at a party and one of the people worked at the beer store. We paid him $20 and he used his keys to grab us a 2-4. No moonshine needed!

I'm in Boston for a few days. Was drinking Guiness and Jameson earlier. I could really use some weed, I with it was legal ;)