3 ms·

I thought crack was the catalyst for the "War on Drugs", not a symptom of it. Heroin was banned in the US in 1924. Also, isn't heroin derived from opium? So,

I thought crack was the catalyst for the "War on Drugs", not a symptom of it. Heroin was banned in the US in 1924. Also, isn't heroin derived from opium? So, are you saying people prefered coca leaves, but they were abolished, so crack became the substance of choice?

kls 16y ago
No I am saying that the market for Crack would not have existed if coca leaf and powder where available with little hassle. The economy would not be there. Think about it, if they outlawed liquor sure there would be some die hard liquor drinkers, but most would not go through the hassle, they would just drink beer. And liquor manufacturers would not be able to charge a premium due to the economic pressure that the legal alternative puts on it. It would exist but not at the volume that we see now in the drug trade. On a side note: I would love to see the numbers of people who die in drug related violence contrasted to overdoses. I would suspect that we lose more people to the war on drugs than we ever did to overdose.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  There are plenty of people that make their own spirits/beer/moonshine, even though other substances are available. In some areas of the US, there is a thriving, illicit moonshine trade, yet there are liquor stores abound. Some people prefer moonshine. An addicted crackhead would start chewing on coca leaves if he could buy them at Wal-Mart? Or if he had only started chewing on coca leaves, he would have never gotten hooked on crack? People have preferences to foods, why should drugs be any different. Also, the US did outlaw liquor (18th amendment), and many people went through much hassle. People would not be addicted to soda, if we had granted them easier access to corn and corn syrup (see what I did there). Side note: I would like to see the percentage of overdose deaths related to legally manufactured pharmaceuticals. PS: Maybe we should come up with a SW Florida HN Meetup?
  - kls 16y ago
    There are plenty of people that make their own spirits/beer/moonshine, even though other substances are available. In some areas of the US, there is a thriving, illicit moonshine trade, yet there are liquor stores abound. Some people prefer moonshine. right you are never going to kill it completely but the point is the moonshiner are in no way mainstream there are far more drug dealers than moonshiners, with one in virtually ever neighborhood in America. The point is, there will be people who prefer it and will go to any length to get it and by making a weaker safer legal alternative reduces the economically viability of producing moonshine, Heroin et. al. Also, the US did outlaw liquor (18th amendment), and many people went through much hassle. Beer was also prohibited which is exactly my argument, if you are going to make it illegally, you are going to make the hard stuff that requires less logistics to transport and has a better rate of return. American consumption of liquor skyrocketed in comparison to beer during the prohibition years and it was the only years in America that it did so. Many speakeasy sold liquor and mixed drinks exclusively. If liquor where outlawed and only beer remained, the consumption of liquor wold drop further due to the alternative being available. Not that I am advocating the abolition on liquor. Just highlighting that we have clear historical reference that prohibition creates a preference for the strongest formula available. And the availability of a safer alternative reduces the economic viability of more potent products.

kls 16y ago

No I am saying that the market for Crack would not have existed if coca leaf and powder where available with little hassle. The economy would not be there. Think about it, if they outlawed liquor sure there would be some die hard liquor drinkers, but most would not go through the hassle, they would just drink beer. And liquor manufacturers would not be able to charge a premium due to the economic pressure that the legal alternative puts on it. It would exist but not at the volume that we see now in the drug trade. On a side note: I would love to see the numbers of people who die in drug related violence contrasted to overdoses. I would suspect that we lose more people to the war on drugs than we ever did to overdose.

chopsueyar 16y ago
There are plenty of people that make their own spirits/beer/moonshine, even though other substances are available. In some areas of the US, there is a thriving, illicit moonshine trade, yet there are liquor stores abound. Some people prefer moonshine. An addicted crackhead would start chewing on coca leaves if he could buy them at Wal-Mart? Or if he had only started chewing on coca leaves, he would have never gotten hooked on crack? People have preferences to foods, why should drugs be any different. Also, the US did outlaw liquor (18th amendment), and many people went through much hassle. People would not be addicted to soda, if we had granted them easier access to corn and corn syrup (see what I did there). Side note: I would like to see the percentage of overdose deaths related to legally manufactured pharmaceuticals. PS: Maybe we should come up with a SW Florida HN Meetup?
- kls 16y ago
  There are plenty of people that make their own spirits/beer/moonshine, even though other substances are available. In some areas of the US, there is a thriving, illicit moonshine trade, yet there are liquor stores abound. Some people prefer moonshine. right you are never going to kill it completely but the point is the moonshiner are in no way mainstream there are far more drug dealers than moonshiners, with one in virtually ever neighborhood in America. The point is, there will be people who prefer it and will go to any length to get it and by making a weaker safer legal alternative reduces the economically viability of producing moonshine, Heroin et. al. Also, the US did outlaw liquor (18th amendment), and many people went through much hassle. Beer was also prohibited which is exactly my argument, if you are going to make it illegally, you are going to make the hard stuff that requires less logistics to transport and has a better rate of return. American consumption of liquor skyrocketed in comparison to beer during the prohibition years and it was the only years in America that it did so. Many speakeasy sold liquor and mixed drinks exclusively. If liquor where outlawed and only beer remained, the consumption of liquor wold drop further due to the alternative being available. Not that I am advocating the abolition on liquor. Just highlighting that we have clear historical reference that prohibition creates a preference for the strongest formula available. And the availability of a safer alternative reduces the economic viability of more potent products.