[anon291]

Cirrhosis and alcohol deaths and domestic violence decreased drastically during prohibition. Prohibition is the best example of a full scale nationwide 'war' on a drug, IMO. The data on alcohol prohibition are extremely clear... wars on drugs work. No they don't eliminate consumption or erase all problems... nothing can do that. However, they lead to fewer consumers; and thus fewer problems due to consumption.

EDIT: Source (and good reading): https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...

> Prohibition meant to address these problems by reducing drinking. On that metric alone, it succeeded. > > This is not controversial among experts. When I asked Courtwright, a drug historian at the University of North Florida, whether Prohibition led to more drinking, he responded, “No well-informed historian has believed that for 50 years.”

Did prohibition have problems? yes. But the problem was not that people consumed more. That is a common misconception.

[vidarh]

Most criticism of prohibition / the war on drugs focuses on total harm, not just the harm of consumption.

Some may well believe prohibition increased use, but personally I can't recall ever having seen that argument.

With the war on drugs you have to e.g. add in the huge amount of violence and other crimes caused by illegal production and distribution and high prices of various hard drugs, as well as the severe impact on people imprisoned as a result.

It would take a massive increase in harm from the drugs themselves to outweigh that harm.

That's before considering what investing the same resources in other mitigation might achieve.

[anon291]

> With the war on drugs you have to e.g. add in the huge amount of violence and other crimes caused by illegal production and distribution and high prices of various hard drugs, as well as the severe impact on people imprisoned as a result.

After marijuana legalization, illegal ops still account for a significant portion of the marijuana sales. There's always going to be illegal producers.

As for those imprisoned... few are imprisoned for simple possession as evidenced by the paltry amount of people released by President Biden's pardon.

> Most criticism of prohibition / the war on drugs focuses on total harm, not just the harm of consumption.

Is the claim that the mob disappeared after Prohibition was repealed? Because it didn't

[vidarh]

> After marijuana legalization, illegal ops still account for a significant portion of the marijuana sales. There's always going to be illegal producers.

And? Any reduction reduces harm. It's also interesting to focus on one of the lowest harm drugs (far less harmful than alcohol), instead of the war on drugs as a whole.

> As for those imprisoned... few are imprisoned for simple possession as evidenced by the paltry amount of people released by President Biden's pardon.

Not the relevant number. The relevant number for those who committed crimes to further production, distribution or to finance their habit including other than possession and distribution itself.

E.g. handing out heroin to UK addicts in a pilot scheme showed a significant reduction crime other than that, often related to financing their habits, alongside a long range of other benefits (e.g. more stable living situations - unlike the public image, a large proportion of even heroin addicts can function just fine if they have a steady, clean supply at predictable strength; still a dangerous drug but relying on an unpredictable street supply makes it far worse)

> Is the claim that the mob disappeared after Prohibition was repealed? Because it didn't

Are you suggesting the mob made up the total harm? Because it didn't. It's also peanuts compared to the current war on drugs which is vastly more violent, with demand fuelling outright military operations in a number of countries on a regular basis.

Supporting the war on drugs is morally no better than outright supporting mass murder.

[spyda]

Even the article you linked suggests prohibition isn't the solution. It suggests a more balanced approach, i.e. regulation.

That is what Oregon is trying with psilocybin.

edit:

This also misses an important part of this whole conversation, personal liberty. I don't want to have my government determining what I can and cannot consume, as long as I can do so without causing others harm.

[aqme28]

Got it. We just have different metrics for what makes a successful prohibition.

[anon291]

What's your metric? I thought the purpose of these laws is to reduce consumption-related harms

[aqme28]

That is the metric I use, but is not the one you said above, leaving me a little confused.

[anon291]

I said:

> Cirrhosis and alcohol deaths and domestic violence decreased drastically during prohibition. Prohibition is the best example of a full scale nationwide 'war' on a drug, IMO. The data on alcohol prohibition are extremely clear... wars on drugs work. No they don't eliminate consumption or erase all problems... nothing can do that. However, they lead to fewer consumers; and thus fewer problems due to consumption.

Reduced cirrhosis, alcohol deaths, and domestic violence don't count as consumption-related harms? Very confused right now.

I'm not a fan of alcohol prohibition, but rationality requires us to consider the data, especially the data we don't like.