9 ms·

…there was no intrinsic link between drug addiction and criminality. In fact, it was only the high price of drugs, generated by prohibition, that led users to c

by jath2 8y ago

…there was no intrinsic link between drug addiction and criminality. In fact, it was only the high price of drugs, generated by prohibition, that led users to commit crimes, he said. This statement is a real eye opener for me.

craftyguy 8y ago
The US government learned this with the prohibition of alchohol in the early 20th century, then promptly forgot it.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Or used it to incarcerate a portion of the population and use it as an excuse to violate people's rights. Although it's unnecessary now that we can use terrorism as an even better excuse.
  - mulletbum 8y ago
    Drug crackdowns still abuse minority parts of cities. The people pushing drug laws still would like to keep those minorities in prisons without the right to vote.
    - Fjolsvith 8y ago
      Its a shame that they have to use evidence of a crime to abuse those minorities. <sarcasm>
- chupasaurus 8y ago
  Don't forget Cocaine Importing Agency!
- api 8y ago
  Criminal drug prohibition belongs to a whole category of policy ideas that don't work and cause tremendous harm and yet are tried over and over and over again for ideological reasons. Others include things like (to be equal opportunity and criticize both left-wing and right-wing ones) abstinence based sexual education, rent control and price controls generally, extreme trade protectionism, military driven attempts to re-make foreign societies, full scale command economies, legislating religious and social customs, etc.
- om3n 8y ago
  Look at the influence alcohol has in the US today though. "An estimated 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States" I could google statistics for violent crimes committed while under the influence of alcohol, drunk driving statistics, etc. Whether we like to admit it or not alcohol has left a giant, negative, impact on our society. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-co...
  - dev1n 8y ago
    The lessons from the abolition era were that people were going to get alcohol, and the after-affects were so violent and crime-ridden that the government was better off legalizing it and producing laws around the consumption and distribution of it. The same lessons are applicable to drugs outside of alcohol. 88,000 people is terrible. But most of those are due to people knowingly breaking laws. Laws that were written for peoples safety. When there are no laws around drugs except for "dont do it", you're gonna get gang violence like the abolition era had. Organized crime is not something you want.
  - swerner 8y ago
    > Whether we like to admit it or not alcohol has left a giant, negative, impact on our society. I don't think anyone disputes that. The question at hand however is if the legal status of alcohol has any influence on the impact, and if so, what it is. The assumptions of drug or alcohol prohibition are that a) Making a substance illegal reduces consumption of that substance. b) Reduced consumption results in reduced harm. The thing about b) is that not every drinker is a violent drunk and not every drug user is using drugs in harmful way. Prohibitionists are assuming that it not only reduces the number of users, but also that it reduces the number of problematic users. Now the casual pot smoker or the "one beer after work" drinker is not causing trouble for society. At the same time, they are the ones most likely stopping consumption should the substance become illegal. However, the alcohol or heroin addict may not cease consumption the day his substance of choice (or at this point, habit) becomes illegal but instead acquire it through the black market, potentially causing more damage than the substance itself would.
- greggman 8y ago
  they didn't forget. The department tasked with prohibiting alcohol consumption lobbied to ban other things so they'd continue to have jobs.
krageon 8y ago
In what way? Is this not a commonly accepted truth where you are from? Or did it speak to you in some other way that I don't see?
- eric-hu 8y ago
  I read his statement as sarcasm. I'm actually hard pressed to think of how I could interpret it seriously.
  - tchaffee 8y ago
    I would suggest reading up on the Swiss system that hugely reduced a severe heroin problem by treating addiction as a medical problem instead of a criminal problem. Doctors simply administer as much heroin to addicts as they want. It was so successful that now Germany and a couple of other countries have adopted it. Portugal has also had success with decriminalization. There is plenty of evidence out there to support his statement.
    - krageon 8y ago
      Yes, and the person you reply to is saying that this is obvious (from my understanding). I think you have just argued for something you already agree on.
      - Fjolsvith 8y ago
        It was nice, though, to learn about the countries that have had success.
  - cabalamat 8y ago
    Many people are addicted to caffeine; but how many steal to buy coffee?
    - _Schizotypy 8y ago
      it's so cheap and readily available that they don't have to this is because it is legal
ataturk 8y ago
I'm not buying it. When cocaine was legal in the US, even though there wasn't criminality associated with the production and distribution side, there was a HUGE amount of criminality on the user side. Where do you think the movement to ban these substances came from? Do you think it was just a bunch of bible thumping, holier-than-thous who pushed for it? Alcohol prohibition had very similar practical beginnings. That people think they can ban something and it will go away is where their thinking was too infantile for words. But their experiences led them to want to try.
mrfredward 8y ago
Would making alcohol cheaper prevent drunk driving? Bar fights? Cheaper drugs will likely reduce theft and gang violence, but they sure as hell won't prevent people from being irresponsible while intoxicated.
- cf498 8y ago
  The number of drugs who are linked to a higher chance of criminal behavior due to being intoxicated are rather limited and when it comes to drug related crimes another topic in itself. Someone smoking tobacco, weed or heroin wont just suddenly get the idea, that it would be fun to rob someone. When it comes to heroin, but also other highly addictive substances, the main issue is procurement crime. Which is no wonder if someone is addicted and you look at the street prices. Its not feasible for alot of people to make that kind of money legally. Which is a completely different picture if you look at procurement closer to production cost. Production of something like poppies is as inexpensive as it gets.
wu-ikkyu 8y ago
>The iron law of prohibition is a term coined by Richard Cowan in 1986 which posits that as law enforcement becomes more intense, the potency of prohibited substances increases.[1] Cowan put it this way: "the harder the enforcement, the harder the drugs."[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition

by jath2 8y ago

craftyguy 8y ago

The US government learned this with the prohibition of alchohol in the early 20th century, then promptly forgot it.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
Or used it to incarcerate a portion of the population and use it as an excuse to violate people's rights. Although it's unnecessary now that we can use terrorism as an even better excuse.
- mulletbum 8y ago
  Drug crackdowns still abuse minority parts of cities. The people pushing drug laws still would like to keep those minorities in prisons without the right to vote.
  - Fjolsvith 8y ago
    Its a shame that they have to use evidence of a crime to abuse those minorities. <sarcasm>
chupasaurus 8y ago
Don't forget Cocaine Importing Agency!
api 8y ago
Criminal drug prohibition belongs to a whole category of policy ideas that don't work and cause tremendous harm and yet are tried over and over and over again for ideological reasons. Others include things like (to be equal opportunity and criticize both left-wing and right-wing ones) abstinence based sexual education, rent control and price controls generally, extreme trade protectionism, military driven attempts to re-make foreign societies, full scale command economies, legislating religious and social customs, etc.
om3n 8y ago
Look at the influence alcohol has in the US today though. "An estimated 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States" I could google statistics for violent crimes committed while under the influence of alcohol, drunk driving statistics, etc. Whether we like to admit it or not alcohol has left a giant, negative, impact on our society. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-co...
- dev1n 8y ago
  The lessons from the abolition era were that people were going to get alcohol, and the after-affects were so violent and crime-ridden that the government was better off legalizing it and producing laws around the consumption and distribution of it. The same lessons are applicable to drugs outside of alcohol. 88,000 people is terrible. But most of those are due to people knowingly breaking laws. Laws that were written for peoples safety. When there are no laws around drugs except for "dont do it", you're gonna get gang violence like the abolition era had. Organized crime is not something you want.
- swerner 8y ago
  > Whether we like to admit it or not alcohol has left a giant, negative, impact on our society. I don't think anyone disputes that. The question at hand however is if the legal status of alcohol has any influence on the impact, and if so, what it is. The assumptions of drug or alcohol prohibition are that a) Making a substance illegal reduces consumption of that substance. b) Reduced consumption results in reduced harm. The thing about b) is that not every drinker is a violent drunk and not every drug user is using drugs in harmful way. Prohibitionists are assuming that it not only reduces the number of users, but also that it reduces the number of problematic users. Now the casual pot smoker or the "one beer after work" drinker is not causing trouble for society. At the same time, they are the ones most likely stopping consumption should the substance become illegal. However, the alcohol or heroin addict may not cease consumption the day his substance of choice (or at this point, habit) becomes illegal but instead acquire it through the black market, potentially causing more damage than the substance itself would.
greggman 8y ago
they didn't forget. The department tasked with prohibiting alcohol consumption lobbied to ban other things so they'd continue to have jobs.

krageon 8y ago

In what way? Is this not a commonly accepted truth where you are from? Or did it speak to you in some other way that I don't see?

eric-hu 8y ago
I read his statement as sarcasm. I'm actually hard pressed to think of how I could interpret it seriously.
- tchaffee 8y ago
  I would suggest reading up on the Swiss system that hugely reduced a severe heroin problem by treating addiction as a medical problem instead of a criminal problem. Doctors simply administer as much heroin to addicts as they want. It was so successful that now Germany and a couple of other countries have adopted it. Portugal has also had success with decriminalization. There is plenty of evidence out there to support his statement.
  - krageon 8y ago
    Yes, and the person you reply to is saying that this is obvious (from my understanding). I think you have just argued for something you already agree on.
    - Fjolsvith 8y ago
      It was nice, though, to learn about the countries that have had success.
- cabalamat 8y ago
  Many people are addicted to caffeine; but how many steal to buy coffee?
  - _Schizotypy 8y ago
    it's so cheap and readily available that they don't have to this is because it is legal

ataturk 8y ago

I'm not buying it. When cocaine was legal in the US, even though there wasn't criminality associated with the production and distribution side, there was a HUGE amount of criminality on the user side. Where do you think the movement to ban these substances came from? Do you think it was just a bunch of bible thumping, holier-than-thous who pushed for it? Alcohol prohibition had very similar practical beginnings. That people think they can ban something and it will go away is where their thinking was too infantile for words. But their experiences led them to want to try.

mrfredward 8y ago

Would making alcohol cheaper prevent drunk driving? Bar fights? Cheaper drugs will likely reduce theft and gang violence, but they sure as hell won't prevent people from being irresponsible while intoxicated.

cf498 8y ago
The number of drugs who are linked to a higher chance of criminal behavior due to being intoxicated are rather limited and when it comes to drug related crimes another topic in itself. Someone smoking tobacco, weed or heroin wont just suddenly get the idea, that it would be fun to rob someone. When it comes to heroin, but also other highly addictive substances, the main issue is procurement crime. Which is no wonder if someone is addicted and you look at the street prices. Its not feasible for alot of people to make that kind of money legally. Which is a completely different picture if you look at procurement closer to production cost. Production of something like poppies is as inexpensive as it gets.

wu-ikkyu 8y ago

>The iron law of prohibition is a term coined by Richard Cowan in 1986 which posits that as law enforcement becomes more intense, the potency of prohibited substances increases.[1] Cowan put it this way: "the harder the enforcement, the harder the drugs."[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition