@zhoad1 Well, That’s not entirely true. People use drugs because they fell disconnected from the world. In the Vietnam War, 20% of American troops were using herion. Whenthey got home 98% of them just stopped. Same happens when they tested this with rats. When putting a rat in an empty cage, They drink the drugged water instead of regular water. When they put the rat with friends, Cheese, And toys. The rats almost never drank the drugged water over the regular water
Zhaod1, I do not think that it should be at the expense of taxpayers, Rather I think it should be in the form of private donations, A sort of charity. And that is in the case that treatment is even necessary, Most often it is not, Same with alcohol or, Say, Tobacco.
No more cartels, No economic reason for gangs in inner cities, You can tax it, Less people in jail, And more money in the taxpayers pocket. Let people destroy themselves, There are too many people in this world as it is.
First of all, Making drugs illegal doesn't stop the production and selling of drugs. I don't really know why you people oppose this idea, If you want to consume drugs, Do it, If you don't want, Don't do it.
Yea, Alcohol use falling after the end of prohibition absolutely does not support the idea that prohibition decreases usage. In fact it proves the exact opposite since it means that alcohol usage was higher during prohibition and less people used alcohol after prohibition when alcohol was actually legal. Also, How can one complain about the possible misuse of taxpayer funds, And then defend the war on drugs? The war on drugs is one of the biggest misuses of taxpayer funds in history. Seriously google this stuff or watch a documentary or something even law enforcement knows it isn't working. The flow of drugs over the border has barely been hindered the cartels continue getting richer and richer despite the literal tons of drugs that get confiscated each year. If keeping drugs illegal was actually stopping the production and selling of those drugs then Mexico wouldn't be so infested with cartels and no one would know who El Chapo was. Also, My hometown wouldn't be in the middle of a heroin epidemic. My little brothers used to get offered heroin on a regular basis when we still lived there. All you had to do was walk down the street and wait until some random dude hollers at you. Your kids already have access to any drug they want and the ridiculous sums of taxpayer funds devoted to stopping this are being completely wasted.
Yep, And then jumped 60-70% in the years afterwards. Basically it took time to set up the stills. Those levels didn't drop back down immediately after the end of prohibition either. Rather they stayed the same for a few years before dropping again. Laws typically don't enact massive change overnight.
It's like you don't even know the words I'm using. The alcohol consumption rate was not "low" during prohibition so no it could not have "stayed low". As you pointed out it dropped roughly 20% at the start of prohibition, Then soon after started climbing until it rose around 60-70% during prohibition. It then remained at that rate at the end of prohibition then eventually fell. The prohibition of alcohol was a complete failure, This is common knowledge.
No, I was saying that to contradict your statement.
Fact: Alcohol consumption decreased by around 20% once prohibition was enacted, And stayed to similar levels even after prohibition was repealed.
Well, Then you're simply wrong, And anyone who knows anything about the topic knows you are wrong. Anyone who has ever done a google search on the topic knows you are wrong. Seriously, Educate yourself on a topic before trying to tell people about it. Different sources disagree on exact numbers sometimes, But virtually all sources agree alcohol prohibition was a complete and total failure.
Actually, You're right. You are most likely exaggerating the point, As well as putting words in my mouth, Which was followed by comparisons that I will reserve judgment on simply because I was completely wrong about everything I said after my first post in this comment section. That and I was generally being an asshole, So I was really asking for it. As for your links, Those didn't really work out. The first one actually lead me to a dead end at first. Then I googled it and found an article with the same date and with that exact title so I'm pretty sure it's the one you meant. Weird that it did that since as far as I can tell you made no errors on the web address. The article itself was pure opinion backed up by no evidence and no facts, The author certainly stated his opinion as if it were fact. However it was still just an opinion, Which is probably why it's in the "opinion" section. Your second link brought me to a study on the "Effect of chlorphentermine on the lipids of rat lungs. " I assume you didn't actually mean to link to that since it has nothing to do with prohibition. Still the site that study was on is a site I've used to gather information before so I searched it for a relevant study. I only managed to find one, It was pretty decent and I can post the link if you want. Although, I was unable to verify any of it's sources. Most source links I tried were blocked behind paid subscriptions (which isn't exactly uncommon, Unfortunately) but others turned up absolutely nothing. Still, It was good enough to raise question so I started searching. As it turns out, The opinions of the experts on the topic is very consistent in claiming that prohibition did, In fact lower alcohol consumption rates. Which simply put, Means that I was wrong. I didn't give you the respect I give most and simply dismissed your argument without going back and looking it up (exactly what I accused you of doing). For that, I sincerely apologize. In hindsight, It was really stupid of me. That still does not mean I agree with prohibition, That brought far too many problems with it for me to do that. Still as far as alcohol consumption rates go, You were right and you deserve credit for that. Seriously, Thank you for calling my bullshit. I wouldn't know better otherwise.
I think it's because that prohibition created a big black market that many would consider prohibition to be a failure. However, It is also true that while prohibition raised crime rates in other areas, It lowered crime rates related to alcohol abuse, So the crime rate was pretty level from the beginning to the end of it. To me, I think its a tradeoff between public health vs individual freedom. In truth, Though, I am undecided in an alcohol ban, Because some alcoholic drinks like red wine is healthy in moderate amounts.
However, My opinion would be that prohibition would be better off if redirected at cocaine and heroin, Because those drugs are already unpopular, And are harmful and dangerous. Of course, Though, It's just my opinion, And I shouldn't decide for others.
One more thing: I think we can agree on that there should be a balance between freedom and government, Right?