Prohibition (all drugs) and its effect on society.

I wrote this while high.

First, it's established by most intellectuals/specialists (ask for sources if you wish) that the prohibition of psychoactive substances is a complete policy failure. This is true by looking at one blatant fact:

- Drugs are widely accessible to the entire population.

Now, as the personal consumption of illegal drugs doesn't directly effect third-parties, it's impossible for a crime to have been committed by definition. Therefore, all laws against drugs must be purely for the user's benefit. However, we then come across a few hurdles.

The first is quite simple, really. Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful individually and socially than most illegal drugs, yet are legal and regulated. No more evidence is needed here.

The fact that drugs are illegal will never stop their consumption. That's simply an economic fact. If there's demand, there's supply. We can also use economic theory to prove that governments who advocate prohibition actually aid drug dealers and harm the consumer.

Take cannabis, for example. There's more supply of cannabis in the black market than any other drug. Now, when a government advocates a 'War on Drugs' or 'clampdown', it's obvious that arrests leading to the possession of cannabis will increase (this is proved - ask for sources if you wish). This also means that larger quantities of cannabis will be seized by the authorities. Therefore, supply is restricted, hence price is inflated artificially by distorting the market like any other. This means that people will feel inclined to do one or a combination of three things:

1. Begin to take harder drugs, as the opportunity cost is relatively low due to the change in price(aided by prohibition).
2. Harm society to fund such a price increase.
3. Stop taking illegal drugs.

The latter would be preferred, however, we know from alcohol/tobacco data that price remains inelastic in response to a change in the price. Therefore, options 1 and 2 become the likely candidates.

Furthermore, if prices are kept artificially high, it's difficult for someone to enter the market unless they have a considerable amount of capital. So, if I'm a huge drug baron, not only are my products being constantly inflated due to prohibition, but the government actually stifles competition by increasing the sunk costs & risks involved. It doesn't take a degree in nuclear physics to work out the implications of such market distortion.

Now, let's just move onto something which is also economic fact. If all drugs were legalized and regulated by the state, a number of things would happen:

1. The price of drugs would fall dramatically.
2. The black market (and everything associated with it) for drugs would be destroyed.
3. A significant amount of homicides/voilence relating to drugs would no longer occour.
4. A significant amount of criminal behaviour would disappear due to a decrease in demand for money due to a decrease in price.

Now, under the prohibition of alcohol in the United States, after it was scrapped, alcohol consumption rose at first. However, over the last 60 years, alcohol usage in the United States has actually fallen.

I just want to mention a legal anomaly surrounding drug prohibition, too. In English Common Law, both Actus Reus (guilty Act) and Mens Rea (guilty mind) have to be established beyond reasonable doubt for a criminal offense to have been committed.

This is where prohibition doesn't make sense. If someone consumes an illegal substance, then both can easily be dispensed with via a test and/or confession. However, a criminal offense implies that someone has committed an offense that has damaged society as a whole (hence why the courts act for the Crown). If someone consumes a psychoactive substance, how does that effect another person and/or society? If I murder someone, I've clearly committed a criminal offense against a fellow citizen. If I commit Common Battery, I've obviously physically harmed a fellow citizen.

The rule falls short when it comes to drugs, as does government policy.

Edit~ I just wanted to add that in places where psychoactive substances have been made legal and regulated, consumption has fallen. The United States has a huge problem with cannabis consumption. I firmly believe that the dramatic increase in that consumption is due to the drinking age being 21 in most states. That means it escalates what I've been talking about.

You got me started on some reading on this subject. Thanks.

I did a 4 project arc of papers in my english class on the prohibition, eventual criminalization, then I got into industrial hemp and how it seems that DuPont had a lobby to get our reliance off of hemp and to their nice nylon ropes for ww2.
Phytoremediation was my big focus though.

I found this interesting read about the economics of regulation. Quite a bit of money could be saved and generated.

good topic!

I read something the other day about how Janis Joplin died because she bought her heroin from an amateur dealer who cut it too fine.

Janis knew her heroin limits; it was all because of that dumbfuck dealer.

If heroin were legal, Janis Joplin would still be with us today.

So would many others.