4 ms·

It is my opinion that prohibition remains in effect because too many powerful groups profit from it. Even small-time marijuana growers in California were agains

It is my opinion that prohibition remains in effect because too many powerful groups profit from it. Even small-time marijuana growers in California were against legalization because it would affect their livelihood. Trade in illicit drugs is estimated at over $300 billion per year or about 1% of global trade. That's huge...and it doesn't even account for the other side of the coin which is the amount of tax dollars that the DEA, your local police and other groups can take control of to "fight" the war on drugs which they don't really want to end. Furthermore, I am convinced that governmental intelligence agencies who need secret money to run their "black ops" do indeed take profits from the sale of illicit drugs. Nobody can prove it of course (well, maybe Gary Webb could have, but he's dead now). So, I think that arguing from the standpoint that laws are made to protect the public just doesn't work here.

weddpros 12y ago
There's certainly a conflict of interest here. Government agencies like the DEA benefit greatly from penalization of drugs. And governments hate closing agencies and firing people. Governments love a good fight, a costly one. And governments don't care about efficiency: it could be negative, they'd throw more of our money at it to get results. But I think we can't reject as a whole that "laws are made to protect the public". Some laws are stupid, when they try to protect you from yourself. Laws that protect you from others' enactments on you are mostly sane. Laws should be restricted to preventing prejudice I think. Without prohibition, drug dealers could still be prosecuted for not informing customers properly or, in extreme cases, for poisoning their clients. And that's good, because it would mean they'd have responsibility. They'd make their products better, safer... like every other business must do. Prohibition removes the responsibility argument in favor of a stupid "it's forbidden"... It's like a shortcut that doesn't take you where you wanted.

weddpros 12y ago

There's certainly a conflict of interest here. Government agencies like the DEA benefit greatly from penalization of drugs. And governments hate closing agencies and firing people. Governments love a good fight, a costly one. And governments don't care about efficiency: it could be negative, they'd throw more of our money at it to get results. But I think we can't reject as a whole that "laws are made to protect the public". Some laws are stupid, when they try to protect you from yourself. Laws that protect you from others' enactments on you are mostly sane. Laws should be restricted to preventing prejudice I think. Without prohibition, drug dealers could still be prosecuted for not informing customers properly or, in extreme cases, for poisoning their clients. And that's good, because it would mean they'd have responsibility. They'd make their products better, safer... like every other business must do. Prohibition removes the responsibility argument in favor of a stupid "it's forbidden"... It's like a shortcut that doesn't take you where you wanted.