[civilian]

Licensed & regulated dealers (aka pharmacies) would be great.

In regards to the harm from drugs-- I'd add the obvious point that prohibition comes with a really high cost.

I recently did dry-january and I was really happy with the results of cutting back on my drinking. I wake up more rested, and had more energy in the evenings. I've been thinking that going totally dry might be a good thing to do in my life.

But would I make alcohol, one of the top killers in america, illegal? (ref: http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm ) Absolutely not. If you went to US high school you know why--- alcohol-dealing gangs took over. People turned to bad products (wood alcohol, that potentially included methanol) to get their alcohol fix. I imagine we needlessly jailed a lot of alcohol drinkers and pushers.

A more indepth analysis of alcohol prohibition: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

Why does the general public consider drug prohibition to be that much different than alcohol prohibition??

[mgleason_3]

US prison statistics should have everyone questioning what the hell our government is doing.

According to The Federal Bureau of Prisons: - 48.7% of prisoners are in for drug related offenses

Apparently a large number (12.3-27.3%) are for Marijuana related offenses.

See http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offens...

[krylon]

> Why does the general public consider drug prohibition to be that much different than alcohol prohibition??

Because they have been told by the media, over and over, for decades. At least that's my theory. Consider how often the phrase "drugs and alcohol" is used in the general context of substance-based addiction.

Because it is socially accepted. Being a connoisseur of fine wines or whiskey is something many people consider sophisticated. Being a connoisseur of, say psychedelics or stimulants is, apparently a criminal offense.

[jensen123]

My theory is that the media tells people what they want to hear, in order to sell the most papers, page impressions etc. If they told stuff that the general public disagreed with, then they would probably lose readers/viewers.

Alcohol has a long tradition in the western civilization, so people feel somewhat comfortable with that. Other drugs probably seem very new and scary to the average guy.

[nitrogen]

My theory is that the media tells people what they want to hear, in order to sell the most papers, page impressions etc. If they told stuff that the general public disagreed with, then they would probably lose readers/viewers.

There is a feedback cycle, where the media both manipulates and responds to public opinion.

[tluyben2]

Not sure why people and especially lawmakers keep separating alcohol and other drugs. Alcohol is a drug and one of the more dangerous and addictive ones at that. If that is legal than so should a lot of other drugs be. And trying to make it illegal, as you say does not work; it makes it things worse.

[movetola]

Alcohol dealing gangs? We didn't have those at my high school, we'd just give a homeless guy extra cash to buy us a few 40s or a bottle of Jameson.

[wclax04]

I think he meant if you studied at a US a high school you would have learned about prohibition and the associated organized crime.

[jensen123]

> Why does the general public consider drug prohibition to be that much different than alcohol prohibition??

The average IQ of most western countries, including the US, is around 100. That's probably significantly lower than the average reader here on Hacker News. I'm not sure if a person with an IQ of 100 ever asks themselves intelligent questions like yours...

[SixSigma]

That the average is 100 should come as no surprise, seeing as IQ is defined so that the median score of tests on the population is 100.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

[rat87]

May I reccomend http://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/top/ to you?

Also you're assuming some sort of strong correlation between IQ or some other measure of intelligence and good political judgement.

[tracker1]

I was recently in a conversation where it was pointed out that my rather cold analytic nature when it comes to these kinds of things puts me at odds with more emotionally driven decisions. Even without agreeing, I can see the point.

That said, in my mind short of violent action, I find it hard to see how having to serve more than two decades in prison is any kind of justice for any kind of non-violent crime. I also find that seeing the U.S. prison population at near 1% is rather depressing, and that most drugs probably shouldn't be criminalized and their use are more representative of other social issues at hand.

When black markets exist to the extent that the drug trade does, it usually indicates that the law is probably wrong. A black market for anything will always exist, but when you're starting to see it affect even 1% of the population as it does in this case, that should indicate that legally, the position should change in a way that reduces the need for such markets. However, time and time again governments try to push in the other direction, the U.S. revolution from England is in a large part based on this.

[rorykoehler]

There is no justice in this sentencing. The sentence is to set an example (words of the judge) which by it's very definition is unjust. Regardless of what you think of the laws relating to this case everyone deserves the same treatment under the law.

[rbobby]

> having to serve more than two decades in prison is any kind of justice for any kind of non-violent crime

Bernie Madoff got 150 years.

[jensen123]

IQ basically measures the speed of the brain, so it seems likely that there is some correlation between IQ and good political judgement. High IQ people basically have a greater capacity for thought.

[rat87]

> so it seems likely that there is some correlation between IQ and good political judgement

Considering that many smart people believe in opposing ideologies, many of those being extreme and some which I think are really stupid, I can't believe that. I'd consider empathy and open-mindedness much more likely to correlate with support for good policies. Also people tend to disagree on what policies are good. People disagree on what good basic principles are, what the likely outcomes are, and whether those outcomes are good or not. There is disagreement even among smart people, even after the stupidity of much of the drug war.

[dasil003]

> IQ basically measures the speed of the brain

IQ attempts to measure the speed of the brain, via a proxy designed by humans who probably on average think a bit highly of their own intelligence. No risk of cognitive bias there....