Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the wealthy three times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and most recently in Kansas. The results have been similarly disastrous all three times. And yet we're still arguing about that too.
Cannabis prohibition, on the other hand, has historically been targeted explicitly at minorities (and later expanded as a way to scare young people out of counter-cultures). In a sense, it has been extremely effective at its intended goal: systematic oppression of The Other. (The fact that early demonization of marijuana was intertwined with fears of white women being seduced by jazz culture or raped by "reefer madness" also signals an evo-psych component: removing competitor males from the gene pool by locking up as many black men as possible.)
In addition to reducing undue U.S. interference with other countries' affairs, legalization is badly needed at home to reduce the prison population and address the racial injustices of the legal system.
In the USA. And the rest of the world inherited that for free. Which is kind of sad actually, living by other people ideosyncrasies.
Note: targeted at minorities by minorities.
The African American community was hugely supportive of the "War on Drugs", until it became clear that it wasn't helping.
But seriously, in the 1960s through 1990s, plenty of powerful African American politicians supported the War on Drugs. http://prisontime.org/files/2013/07/oberia-dempsey-war-on-dr... . The "War on Drugs" was built with huge support from the African American community, we Americans as a whole thought it would be good for us.
It was believed that the white man oppressed African Americans through the use of drugs. Therefore, by declaring the war on drugs, the Black man would become freer. Things didn't turn out that way :-(
Today, the "War on Drugs" is clearly not helping. Eric Holder / President Obama ordered the FBI / Justice Department to go easier against drug offenders.
So it is clear to our current leaders (as well as African American leaders) that we need to end the "War on Drugs".
You are talking about a much later stage, when the power dynamic was one of entrenched power.
I do think it is important to remember that the African American community was pretty happy with the inception of the "War on Drugs" however.
Cannabis (and pretty much every psychoactive drugs except alcohol) is prohibited in almost every countries in the world. Isn't it a bit simplistic to think that oppressing minorities was the only reason behind it?
Do you have a "when" in mind there? Cannabis has a colorful history in the USA, and it does not seem like its entire history has been centered on "suppressing the Other". To my knowledge it was originally regulated as a part of the opium/narcotics laws that swept the world in the early 1900's.
Whether or not it was worth the cost is a separate issue; I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't. But the argument can be made that it did "work" in reducing alcohol consumption.
As for Jim Crow 'working,' it's notable that drug prohibition has 'worked' as a Jim Crow as well.
That aside, the parallels regarding stronger formulations and compounds is spot on.
It's just not the way "worked" is used, and falling back on the most literal, narrow meaning of the term actually signals conceding the argument.
"We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply to about 60-70 percent of its pre-Prohibition level."
If I was trying to prohibit something but could only manage to prevent 30-40 percent of it compared to when it was legal I would certainly feel I had failed. This is without factoring in all the other problems Prohibition caused.
Does it mean that all drugs should be freely sold? I have no doubt that cannabis should be legal: not only is it relatively harmless, but it's very easy to grow. But what about other more addictive and dangerous drugs?
No. Ron's First Law still applies: all extreme positions are wrong.
If the argument is that everyone would just become drug addicts, I would argue that a hell of a lot of us already are drug addicts, just addicts to more socially acceptable drugs. And if reality can't compete with drugs, reality should step up its game.
What about the comment is wrong to you? It made perfect sense to me, but if you've got another perspective then feel free to share it.
The problem has always been deficit spending. That spending wasn't cut with the tax cuts; or that tax cuts weren't paid for out of surplus (which obviously the modern US Govt. has rarely had).
For example, had George W. Bush not gone on a massive spending spree, there would have been zero deficit problem during his presidency in relation to the tax cuts. The problem was the extreme spending increases during his eight years, combined with cutting revenue.
There's no inherent moral basis to claim rich people should always get soaked on taxes, even when there's plenty of revenue such that you have a surplus - it's a question of balancing.
I'd argue unchecked spending expansion, drastically faster than the rate of population increase (ie what has happened in the last 13x years), is far more destructive than tax cuts for the wealthy. If you run a disciplined budget, and an efficient government, you will more than likely be able to bring down taxes for all people over time. The US has done the exact opposite lately, as have so many other failing welfare states across the globe.
The data say otherwise.
> The problem has always been deficit spending
No. In Kansas they cut spending along with taxes (no choice -- a state can't run a long-term deficit). The result has been such an unmitigated disaster that even many prominent Republicans are now supporting the Democratic candidate for governor.
There's absolutely a problem with relative tax burden shifts from the poor to the wealthy (which is what tax cuts disproportionately for the wealthy are), independently of overall spending/tax balance.
Whether deficit spending is a problem is a completely separate question (though I'd argue that the simple "deficit = bad" position is ludicrous, current spending in excess of revenue is good or bad based on what the spending is for and what the rationally expected outcome of the spending is; sure, interest has a cost, but there are benefits to weight against that cost if the spending is well-chosen.)