Alcohol Prohibition - Should we bring it back?

[SeanDamnit]

It seems almost unanimous in the conversation thus far that alcohol prohibition was a bad idea. From making bad guys rich, to concerns over the safety of the unregulated black market of the product, to concerns as to where we'd put all the offenders, to how harmful it would be to the domestic economy to remove the industry.

Now what I would find interesting -- and I'd imagine this is what the OP was getting at as well -- is whether or not everyone that agreed prohibition of alcohol is bad would agree that the current prohibition of other recreational drugs is just as bad.

In my view, every problem the US and other countries had with alcohol prohibition is almost exactly what we're seeing with Marijuana, for example. Problem is that the drug has almost always been illegal, so we don't have a time period to compare it to and say whether or not prohibition made things better or worse. The drug trade making drug barons rich, full prison systems, etc have just always been there...

 

[Fiona]

Problem is that the drug has almost always been illegal, so we don't have a time period to compare it to and say whether or not prohibition made things better or worse. The drug trade making drug barons rich, full prison systems, etc have just always been there...

That is not actually true. Marijuana was legal in the united states until the early part of the last century and it was not regulated in every state till 1927. It seems to me that the time was ripe for this kind of legislation because it is also around the period of alcohol prohibition in the USA. But it was not made fully illegal till much later (arguably 1937, but it is possible to make a case that it was not until the late 1950's because its use for medical and scientific purposes was ok till then)

It was made illegal in the UK in 1925. This was because of a League of Nations convention on control of narcotics which the UK signed. But again its use was controlled,not banned, and medical and scientific use was sanctioned. That continued to be the case till a UN convention was adopted in the early 1960's: a convention which the US also signed, I believe

It is not that we do not have a comparison period: it is rather that cannabis and opiates were not the drug of choice in the USA and UK for most people: the International conventions against it were driven by countries like Egypt, where alcohol is unusual and hash is the intoxicant of choice for many more people: there were economic drivers as well because taxation of hash in places like Bengal was a big source of revenue for the state, as is taxation of alcohol here. So as the drug became more popular in th west (which it did in the 50's and 60's) there were implications for trade: the conventions also allowed medical use even after that: but at the time it was argued that there was no legitimate medical use for it.

There was no mass disobedience as there was for alcohol because people did not use it in great numbers till the latter part of the last century: but that does not mean that the prohibition was not accompanied by the usual horror stories: violence and rape and all the usual suspect consequences were depicted as outcomes of cannabis use and there was little to counter that because so few people had experience. The comparison would have to be done in those countries where it had a status like alcohol and that means the middle east and india and places like that: but of course those didn't really count much when this debate was taking place.

 

[gumboot]

It's not the Job of the Government to protect Citizens from doing something stupid and harming (only) themselves.

What if it harms others?

 

[gumboot]

The difference, as I see it, is the cultural significance of the substance in question. Alcohol has been a fundamental part of our culture dating back thousands and thousands of years. Trying to abolish it when it is so deeply ingrained in society is problematic.

Most prohibited recreational drugs cannot claim the same deeply embedded status in our culture, so prohibiting them is much, much easier.

Further, alcohol is mostly consumed in moderation, for the purpose of enjoying the consumption itself. Unless you're talking New Zealand (where binge drinking is alarmingly common), most people don't drink to "get drunk".

In contrast, I cannot think of a single banned recreational drug that is consumed in the same way (marijuana probably comes closest, in some contexts). The entire point of smoking a joint or snorting some cocaine or injecting heroine is to get wasted. The sole objective is to obliterate the user's sense of reality. Often the actual consumption or administering of the drug is unpleasant, even to those who enjoy the substance.

That alone, makes any comparison between alcohol and recreational drugs questionable.

 

[Mr.D]

I'm not really sure where the analogy breaks down, they are slightly different but there isn't much different between booze and pot really.

I did put the word "legal" in there, and I contend that from an economic point of view, it makes booze and pot very different.

 

[dtugg]

What if it harms others?

The act of consuming drugs or alcohol doesn't harm anybody but maybe the user. Anybody under the influence of drugs or alcohol that harms other people should be punished just the same as any other criminal.

 

[dtugg]

I put the "legal" qualifier in there for a reason, and I contend that from an economic point of view, it makes the difference between booze and pot very different.

Yeah, the money spent of booze goes to legitimate businesses. Because some people like to meddle in others' lives, money spent on drugs often goes to violent criminals in other countries (in the USA that would be mostly Mexican drug cartels). That could easily be fixed though if people would listen to reason.

 

[gumboot]

The act of consuming drugs or alcohol doesn't harm anybody but maybe the user. Anybody under the influence of drugs or alcohol that harms other people should be punished just the same as any other criminal.

The "guilty mind" aspect of criminal liability can cause issues with regards to convicting people of crimes when under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

 

[NewtonTrino]

The "guilty mind" aspect of criminal liability can cause issues with regards to convicting people of crimes when under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

So some idiots can go out and get drunk, kill some people and you have to take away my liberty to drink because you might not be able to convict the other guy? That's twisted.

 

[dtugg]

The "guilty mind" aspect of criminal liability can cause issues with regards to convicting people of crimes when under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

I have never heard of anybody successfully using the "I was too wasted to realize what I was doing" defense in the USA. Hell, if that were a legitimate defense, one could argue that DUI isn't even a crime. Perhaps things are different elsewhere.

 

[gumboot]

So some idiots can go out and get drunk, kill some people and you have to take away my liberty to drink because you might not be able to convict the other guy? That's twisted.

I have never heard of anybody successfully using the "I was too wasted to realize what I was doing" defense in the USA. Hell, if that were a legitimate defense, one could argue that DUI isn't even a crime. Perhaps things are different elsewhere.

I'm thinking more in relation to drugs than alcohol. It has been ruled a legitimate defense in NZ, but in the case of alcohol the defendant has to demonstrate that they were so drunk that they had reached a state of mental impairment comparable with insanity - i.e. a total loss of connection with reality.

That could be relatively easy to prove with the use of some drugs, particularly hallucinogenic ones, but obviously you'd need to be severely drunk to reach the same level with alcohol, and when that drunk most people are incapable of basic motor function, thus incapable of committing such crimes.

For the record I'm not in favour of banning alcohol, but I am less opposed to introducing some sort of law that made being drunk in public illegal - much like having a maximum blood-alcohol level for operating a car, but a second perhaps higher legal threshold for being in a public place (maybe it's already illegal in some countries, I don't know).

The reality is that drunkenness (not alcohol!) is a severe drain on society - in NZ for example it's estimated that over 80% of accidental injuries requiring medical attention are caused by alcohol.

 

[dtugg]

For the record I'm not in favour of banning alcohol, but I am less opposed to introducing some sort of law that made being drunk in public illegal - much like having a maximum blood-alcohol level for operating a car, but a second perhaps higher legal threshold for being in a public place (maybe it's already illegal in some countries, I don't know).

I think that public intoxication is illegal in most jurisdictions in the USA. There generally isn't a set blood alcohol level that they will arrest you at. Rather, it is at the discretion of the officer and they will usually only arrest you if you're obviously drunk and also acting like a dumbass.

 

[NewtonTrino]

The difference, as I see it, is the cultural significance of the substance in question. Alcohol has been a fundamental part of our culture dating back thousands and thousands of years. Trying to abolish it when it is so deeply ingrained in society is problematic.

Most prohibited recreational drugs cannot claim the same deeply embedded status in our culture, so prohibiting them is much, much easier.

Then how do you explain the multibillion dollar black market in Marijuana? If nobody uses it there should be no demand. Whether or not American's used it for thousands of years they sure use it now. Of course the US has only been around for a couple of hundred years anyway...

Further, alcohol is mostly consumed in moderation, for the purpose of enjoying the consumption itself. Unless you're talking New Zealand (where binge drinking is alarmingly common), most people don't drink to "get drunk".

In contrast, I cannot think of a single banned recreational drug that is consumed in the same way (marijuana probably comes closest, in some contexts). The entire point of smoking a joint or snorting some cocaine or injecting heroine is to get wasted. The sole objective is to obliterate the user's sense of reality. Often the actual consumption or administering of the drug is unpleasant, even to those who enjoy the substance.

That alone, makes any comparison between alcohol and recreational drugs questionable.

Your assumptions here are BS. I quite enjoy smoking weed. Also I certainly don't get completely blotto from smoking. You are just making stuff up here.

 

[NewtonTrino]

For the record I'm not in favour of banning alcohol, but I am less opposed to introducing some sort of law that made being drunk in public illegal - much like having a maximum blood-alcohol level for operating a car, but a second perhaps higher legal threshold for being in a public place (maybe it's already illegal in some countries, I don't know).

The reality is that drunkenness (not alcohol!) is a severe drain on society - in NZ for example it's estimated that over 80% of accidental injuries requiring medical attention are caused by alcohol.

If it's such a drain on society why are you not in favor of banning it? Is it possibly because the ban causes worse problems than the drug itself?

 

[Toke]

The war on drugs is such a stunning success that it should naturally be extended to alcohol.

The use and abuse of alcohol have a cost to society in both money and ruined lives, I believe it is significantly lower that the cost of enforcing a ban. Same for drugs.

The argument that alcohol is different because it is an integral part of the culture does not hold water when compared with the use of other drugs, if they are used widely they are by definition part of the culture.

Analysis of sewer water can show how widespread cocaine is in a city, today's news showed that it is quite popular in Stockholm.

 

[gumboot]

Then how do you explain the multibillion dollar black market in Marijuana? If nobody uses it there should be no demand. Whether or not American's used it for thousands of years they sure use it now. Of course the US has only been around for a couple of hundred years anyway...

I didn't say there was no demand. I said it wasn't deeply ingrained in the culture. Which it isn't. (The USA's cultural lineage extends back well beyond the establishment of the state).

Your assumptions here are BS. I quite enjoy smoking weed. Also I certainly don't get completely blotto from smoking. You are just making stuff up here.

Almost everyone I know who smokes, or has smoked weed (and that's virtually everyone I know) did it, or does it, to "get high" and no other reason. How high, exactly, well that varies, hence you'll note I said "marijuana probably comes closest [to being used without the intent of getting wasted], in some contexts". Seriously, learn to read.

 

[gumboot]

If it's such a drain on society why are you not in favor of banning it? Is it possibly because the ban causes worse problems than the drug itself?

Jesus wept man (or woman)! Learn to read. I said drunkeness was a drain on society, NOT ALCOHOL. And I expressed support for banning public drunkenness.

Congratulations, you reply to two post by me, and manage to mangle both of them. Been smoking lately? (Kidding )

 

[NewtonTrino]

I didn't say there was no demand. I said it wasn't deeply ingrained in the culture. Which it isn't. (The USA's cultural lineage extends back well beyond the establishment of the state).

I disagree. How could something that is so pervasive not be considered ingrained? It's a multibillion dollar industry!

Almost everyone I know who smokes, or has smoked weed (and that's virtually everyone I know) did it, or does it, to "get high" and no other reason. How high, exactly, well that varies, hence you'll note I said "marijuana probably comes closest [to being used without the intent of getting wasted], in some contexts". Seriously, learn to read.

Ok, I'm not sure why this matters though.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Jesus wept man (or woman)! Learn to read. I said drunkeness was a drain on society, NOT ALCOHOL. And I expressed support for banning public drunkenness.

Congratulations, you reply to two post by me, and manage to mangle both of them. Been smoking lately? (Kidding )

Ok, so what's the argument for keeping weed illegal then?

And actually I do post a lot while high although not today as I'm at the office.

 

[23_Tauri]

Unless you're talking New Zealand (where binge drinking is alarmingly common), most people don't drink to "get drunk".

Or the UK, where binge-drinking is on the rise despite no changes in the law. This suggests to me it is a social, not a legislative problem, which would not be tackled by changes in the law.

note: although there is no accepted definition of binge drinking, one I have managed to track down is 'the consumption of twice the daily benchmark given in the Government's guidelines'.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/01January/Pages/BingedrinkingBritain.aspx

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=6990

and this report:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/POSTpn244.pdf

BD in the UK has gradually increased over the last decade and has typically been viewed as socially acceptable and a ‘normal’ youth behaviour