Another "victimless crime"

[Woobie]

In achieving the State's true aims, the stated goals are always lost and the opposite is generally achieved.

Just look at the war on poverty's stated goals compared to the rampant government dependency and welfare state it actually ushered in.

Precisely. But I really want someone drowning in the kool-aid to throw me a lifeline.

 

[rvb]

I didn't have to support it. It is the status quo. You want change. Fine. Where is your evidence?

As I said before, the present system isn't working well, but I don't have any suggested changes. You seem to be all-fired up about your approach. Where are the facts supporting your conclusions?

What about the drop in crime at the end of prohibition? What caused the "bathtub" in murder rates between prohibition and the start of the war on drugs?

facts? I found this. Didn't read it closely, will try to do that later. Was looking for murder rates and drug arrest rates over the last century and found it here:
http://www.jrsa.org/projects/Historical.pdf

But look at murder rates on pgs 38-39. Dramatic drop post prohibition (1934). That was during the great depression erra, which many would argue should have led to an increase in violent crime as people became more hard up and desperate. But the drop in gang activities and violence associated with the booze black market ended, and so did the violent crime associated with it.

The other end of the bath tub as murders increased about 1965... why did that happen? well, lets go to pg 40 and, whoa, a dramatic up-tick in drug arrests... the war on drugs began. hmmm...

-rvb

 

[churchmouse]

What about the drop in crime at the end of prohibition? What caused the "bathtub" in murder rates between prohibition and the start of the war on drugs?

facts? I found this. Didn't read it closely, will try to do that later. Was looking for murder rates and drug arrest rates over the last century and found it here:
http://www.jrsa.org/projects/Historical.pdf

But look at murder rates on pgs 38-39. Dramatic drop post prohibition (1934). That was during the great depression erra, which many would argue should have led to an increase in violent crime as people because more hard up and desperate. But the drop in gang activities and violence associated with the booze black market ended, and so did the violent crime associated with it.

The other end of the bath tub as murders increased about 1965... why did that happen? well, lets go to pg 40 and, whoa, a dramatic up-tick in drug arrests... the war on drugs began. hmmm...

-rvb

Granted the base of the gangs power is the drug market. They have it, people want it, turf is established, the streets get rough.

 

[ATM]

Granted the base of the gangs power is the drug market. They have it, people want it, turf is established, the streets get rough.

The black market simply reflects the true market which cannot be eradicated by government prohibitions and threats of force.

Prohibition simply creates an atmosphere where the most ruthless and fearsome gain a huge advantage over the most efficient and accountable to provide for that market segment. With the unnaturally inflated risk comes unnaturally inflated profit potential, unnaturally harsh distribution methods, and greatly diminished quality of product as counterfeiting and fraud thrive in prohibited markets.

 

[Alpo]

 

[rvb]

Is the point of posting this intended to show that it's possible to effectively reduce the usage of bad/dangerous substances without outright government bans or a "war" on the product?

-rvb

 

[rvb]

BTW, what is the constitutional authority for the "war on drugs?" I've always assumed via the generic interstate commerce clause as the govt now seems to claim free reign on anything that crosses state lines? Prohibition had constitutional authority through a constitutional amendment....

-rvb

 

[Alpo]

I attempted to find some equivalency between illicit drug use and legal drug use. Alcohol has been mentioned frequently in this thread, so I reviewed some historic data to view consumption over a multi-decade period. It is clear that, absent the period of Prohibition, alcohol consumption per capita has been what most people would call "stable". It floats within a range, but alcohol consumption in 1890 doesn't appear to be much different than alcohol cosumption in 1990.

Looking at cigarette consumption over an equivalent period yields different results. No one today believes cigarettes are "good for you". The health risks associated with tobacco are not largely debated at this point. But with heavy regulation and taxation, consumption has been on the decline for 4 decades. (Note that the early years on the above chart fail to account for cigar smoking, hand-rolled cigarettes and snuff, which predominated in that market).

 

[rvb]

No one today believes cigarettes are "good for you". The health risks associated with tobacco are not largely debated at this point. But with heavy regulation and taxation, consumption has been on the decline for 4 decades. (Note that the early years on the above chart fail to account for cigar smoking, hand-rolled cigarettes and snuff, which predominated in that market).

heavy regulations = 18+ to buy and can't use in public places? Why then hasn't outright bans worked on illegal drugs?
taxation? I see a minor blip ~'84, not a trend changer.

I suspect most smokers quit over health concerns, either their own or concerns from nagging relatives, not so much from legislation or taxes. and that earliest generation of smokers has died off, with a better educated generation following that never picked up the habit. a smoker is no longer "cool," rather a social pariah...

-rvb

 

[ATM]

Is the point of posting this intended to show that it's possible to effectively reduce the usage of bad/dangerous substances without outright government bans or a "war" on the product?

-rvb

More likely that was an unintended and unforeseen consequence of posting it.

 

[Alpo]

There are many reasons for the decline in tobacco use. Anyone interested could search the literature for a more in-depth view. I would say that regulation of advertising, taxation, public service addresses and bans on smoking in enclosed public environments played a significant role. There are still "hardcore" smokers. If tobacco was banned, that group would likely shrink, but never go away.

 

[rvb]

More likely that was an unintended and unforeseen consequence of posting it.

 

[Alpo]

More likely that was an unintended and unforeseen consequence of posting it.

I'm still awaiting data from your acolytes that proves the societal merits of legalization of these substances.

Still waiting.......

Anyone? Anyone?

Buehler?

 

[rvb]

why was a "war" on tobacco never declared?

oh yea, I guess the tobacco lobby was stronger than the H or cocaine lobby.....

yes, some laws were passed the lobbyists couldn't stop, and they may have made some difference. But the point is it's still legal for you to grow tobacco in your back yard. I know a couple guys who do. It's still legal to buy. Insurance company might charge you more or deny claims if you use, which seems reasonable.

What kind of violence have we had recently over tobacco? The only one that comes to mind is the guy in new York assaulted by the law-man for selling untaxed cigarettes.... so the current laws are still resulting in crimes because of those restrictive taxes, just not to the "kill anyone who steps to my corner" level the banned substances see...

-rvb

 

[rvb]

I'm still awaiting data from your acolytes that proves the societal merits of legalization of these substances.

Still waiting.......

Anyone? Anyone?

Buehler?

"PROOF?" that's laughable, we won't see that until something changes. If you won't change until you see "proof," we'll just maintain the status quo for ever and ever.

All we can do is draw conclusions based on similar instances in history, which I did in post 322. Murders plummeted after prohibition, and picked back up once the war on drugs began. Is that not "proof" enough we could see similar results after ending the war on drugs? Or is murder rate not a societal merit for you?

You also "proved" we don't need a ban to reduce dangerous substance abuse with your tobacco analogy. thanks.

-rvb

 

[Alpo]

The loosies in NYC were taxed. And it was his problem that he died while in the loving arms of the boys in blue, wasn't it?

Yes, I see. Violence related to tobacco use is quite small. Yes, you do occasionally find the careless smoker who drops his lit butt in the family sedan and causes a tick in the highway mortality tables, but it is rare. I haven't read about anyone dropping a syringe in the family Subaru and experiencing a similar death...but perhaps that's because the heroin addict can't afford a Subaru?

You've come into the debate after most of us have finished lunch. Proof? Yes. What proof do YOU have that legalization of now-illiicit drugs drives society in a better direction? Show a country where it has worked. To date, no one has done so. Perhaps you'll be the first.

 

[Alpo]

*

 

[rvb]

Yes, I see. The percentages related to tobacco use are quite small however. Yes, you do occasionally find the careless smoker who drops his lit butt in the family sedan and causes a tick in the highway mortality tables, but it is rare. I haven't read about anyone dropping a syringe in the family Subaru and experiencing a similar death...but perhaps that's because the heroin addict can't afford a Subaru?

I honestly can't decipher any kind of point from this.......

-rvb

 

[ATM]

I'm still awaiting data from your acolytes that proves the societal merits of legalization of these substances.

Still waiting.......

Anyone? Anyone?

Buehler?

Prohibition caused massive problems. How do we fix those problems? Remove (repeal) the cause.

Prohibition was not a solution to the original problem, it was ineffective in that regard.

Why continue to live with all the artificially introduced negatives without some offsetting positives which might constitute a net gain for society?

How much simpler shall I make this for you? The societal results of the war on drugs amount to a horrible negative.

You must find some positives to propose that keeping the cause of these negative effects makes any sense. Get busy.

 

[Alpo]

I honestly can't decipher any kind of point from this.......

-rvb

It was a response to your comment:

so the current laws are still resulting in crimes because of those restrictive taxes, just not to the "kill anyone who steps to my corner" level the banned substances see...

Which, along with a friend who grows tobacco in his back yard is the equivalent of anecdotal evidence on Subaru addicts. Get it?

It is not relevant to the $400 billion per year illicit drug market in any meaningful way.

On a more serious note, I don't think alcohol provides a strong example of what would happen with the drug problem. Alcohol has been used for millennia. Crack, cocaine, heroin? Yes, they've been used in the past (the East India Company did its best to destroy China with opium, for example). However, it was never a "market" as it is today. Comments from those who should know place the value of the illicit drug market at $4 trillion, which is equivalent to oil.