…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.
This statement is a real eye opener for me.
"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-co...
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.
> At the same time, they are the ones most likely stopping consumption should the substance become illegal.
What makes you say that? Over 100,000,000 Americans have tried marijuana, which largely remains illegal.
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.
Unfortunately, so does banning them.
There's an individualistic vs societal interest aspect to this as well. For some people marijuana is the best treatment or their illness, so do we inflict suffering on them for the greater society?
It doesn't mean that novel approaches couldn't be effective. It would be relatively easy to contaminate/poison the supply rather than stop it, but rather morally reprehensible.
Also, the current political climate benefits from a drugged populace (dumber, less motivated) with the second-class citizens (cheap labor) criminality creates.
<sarcasm>
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.
Cheaper drugs will likely reduce theft and gang violence, but they sure as hell won't prevent people from being irresponsible while intoxicated.
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.