[toomanybeersies]

The general consensus on Hacker News is that drugs are banned as a method of control over undesirable populations, rather than out of any real concern for people's health.

Undoubtedly, someone will reply to your comment with the quote from Nixon's advisor about how they invented the war on drugs to target the antiwar left and black people.

[pjc50]

This comes up a lot. While it works as an explanation for the US, it's an international issue; it's not one of those things where the US does it differently without realising.

What happens is usually a mix of factors. Drugs aren't purely harmless, you can certainly find a few people who've been harmed directly and a larger group of people whose use is problematic. This creates a demand for Something To Be done.

This falls down on comparisons with alcohol and tobacco - both of which are widely legal and have their own temperance movements, but haven't quite succeeded in a total ban yet. America (and a few other places) actually did have a War On Booze, they just gave up because it's too socially normalised. Only the more extreme Islamic countries manage official temperance, and even there it's widely violated.

[Retric]

Alcohol was banned in the US that turned out to be such a bad idea we changed the constitution.

Drugs are an old thing the Opium Wars started in 1839 and alcohol significantly predates writing.

[is_this_valid2]

> America (and a few other places) actually did have a War On Booze, they just gave up because it's too socially normalised

They might've given up because alcohol prohibition increased the crime and alcohol poisoning rates; because it was killing more people than it was saving.

They might've given up because the state prohibition laws had exceptions for religious and medical purposes and so were explicitly unequal ("de jure discriminatory")

[pjc50]

> alcohol prohibition increased the crime and alcohol poisoning rates; because it was killing more people than it was saving.

Lots of people have argued that the same is true of the drug war, it's just that the mainstream discourse isn't interested in examining this as a factual proposition.

> They might've given up because the state prohibition laws had exceptions for religious and medical purposes and so were explicitly unequal

Same is true of the drug laws (e.g. opiates)?

[is_this_valid2]

I guess people don't want to review data that could help solve the optimization problem (maximize Constitutional compliance, minimize crime, minimize unintentional self harm, minimize loss, minimize suffering, maximize Liberty and pursuit of Happiness; with no particular ranking) amidst emotional rhetoric.

Strict Scrutiny requires a law which violates equality to be the absolute minimum necessary policy which achieves the public interest objective(s).

[merinowool]

If they were concerned about users health, then drugs would have been legal and regulated. Under prohibition people ability to buy clean and cheap drugs is very limited. That leads to severe health risks.

[beaconstudios]

seems to me like a combination of that original reason, being persisted by bureaucratic momentum and lobbying from police retirement funds and for-profit prisons.

[jacobush]

You don't agree?

[toomanybeersies]

I largely agree with the consensus, although I can see how my comment may have been dismissive of that. I'm pro-legalisation (or at minimum decriminalisation) for all recreational drugs and I believe the War on Drugs has been a complete and unmitigated failure in its stated goals.

But I don't think it's the only reason that recreational drugs were banned and have been kept banned. My other theory on why prohibition is popular is due to conservative Protestants believing that mind altering substances are immoral. I've encountered a lot of people who are against recreational drugs for the very fact that they are recreational (while hypocritically still enjoying alcohol).