The reason alcohol isn't illegal is because prohibition was a failure and people did it anyway...

The reason alcohol isn't illegal is because prohibition was a failure and people did it anyway. So by that logic shouldn't every drug be legal since people do them anyway?

Other urls found in this thread:

independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html
nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay
cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/alcohol-prohibition-was-failure
mtholyoke.edu/~bernt22l/classweb/Liana/Failure.html
pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/unintended-consequences/
cbsnews.com/news/prohibition-americas-failed-noble-experiment/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Alcohol isnt the same as meth you subhuman

yes

You're right. Alcohol kills 40,000 people a year. Meth kills 7000.

We should legalize all drugs and have the revenue go to the mormon church and hard line protestants congregations then drugies might actually not purchase them

problem is that alcohol was legal and widely used before prohibition. after prohibition the government "wised'' up and started criminalizing stuff before it could get to that point.

They should be.
The reason they aren't is because the production of drugs is highly profitable and the income can be easily hidden which is something the government doesn't want.

>The reason alcohol isn't illegal is because prohibition was a failure and people did it anyway. So by that logic shouldn't every drug be legal since people do them anyway?
No, You need to look into history. Alcohol was totally common place and most folk went into a bar after work to drink alcohol there.

Even before that, alcohol was drunk for centuries by europeans. Beer, wine and other alcoholic essences.

When alcohol was prohibited, it cut deeply into society and nobody thought he was in the wrong when he continued to drink it: They were in good company, almost everyone had been drinking alcohol until very recently.

So no, it is nothing like legalizing all sorts of uncommon fringe drugs.

They had to repeal prohibition because they needed the excise revenue.

farmers openly grew pot
you could buy cocaine and opium at drug stores
thanks for letting us all know your 12

Yes. All drugs should be legal. Efforts to mitigate their negative effects should focus on helping people, not caging them. Prohibition only creates a lucrative black market that, without access to police or courts, must violently enforce their own property claims.

no, you need to look at history
is everyone in here a teenager?
learn to learn you fucking asshats

>you could buy cocaine and opium at drug stores
yes

it was never common to take it for recreation like alcohol though

in some countries alcohol is state property and another tool of control for centuries, even millennia.
why is it different for drugs, well devil lies in details and effects these equally dangerous substances cause.
why do you think cannabis is being pushed to legal status? don't kid yourself, there are no "soft" drugs, they all lead to severe negative and potentially lethal effects.
difference we are looking to is what effects it cause on brain. if you ever seen how dumb weed junkies become, you will know why they want this to be as spread as possible.
things like LSD though, that is entirely different beast. despite having same negative effects, it actually improves brain functions, at least for a while.
you don't want people having a way for sudden insights in your schemes.
as a result, the "legal" way to get your hands on this shit is to legitimately become insane.

I'm generally for legalization, but one difference is that you can literally make alcohol in your bathtub. As long as people have access to sugars and starches, they can and will make alcohol. You can ban the open sale of it, but that's all. Weed is pretty close to that; if you have any land, you can grow it and you're all set. The harder drugs are harder to do. You can make meth at home, but it's dangerous and hard to conceal. I don't know what's involved in an opium lab. But in general, a serious effort to stop those could be more successful than anything against alcohol could be.

Prohibition only added to the problems caused by Alcoholism. Whereas before men would spend their money in a bar, now they would spend their money in a speakeasy.

The prohibitionists could have gotten 90% of what they wanted, but like all religious zealots, couldn't take "yes" for an answer. So their totalitarian laws blew up in their faces.

All they really needed to do was ban the higher % spirits and regulate the bars. But they were too addicted to the political power they captured due to prohibition. They had to go for a full ban. Which was never going to work.

So why aren't they making alcohol in their bath tubs in Saudi Arabia?

Idiot

If you take the mystery out of alcohol and stop making it such a big deal, it loses its luster; forcing people to wait until they're 21 is one of the biggest jokes, and often times, causes them to either become alcoholics or worse, dead, because they never got used to casual drinking because the first experiences they have with alcohol is in college, where the idea is to always have a rager.

With drugs, I also agree they should all be legalized and taxed, with some of the profits going to better help those still abusing them. The war on drugs has cost billions and the problem still exists; cut out the shady corner dealers and the cartels, leave it to pharmacys and doctors, and it helps solve a lot of the issues in the US.

Because Islam prohibits it. So people willingly don't partake. For example, in Egypt, pork and alcohol aren't illegal, yet very few partake.

yes

Yes.

Meth, cocaine, opioids, heroin, and weed were widely availible and legal for quite awhile.

The reason alcohol isn't illegal is because the law itself was destined to be overturned, just as many drug laws are destined to be overturned, since they violate the freedom of citizens. It's just a question of how long it takes to get them overturn, which is dependent on how many people are upset, and it's evident many more people drink alcohol than smoke weed, and many more people smoke weed than do coke. Thus alcohol is legal, weed is becoming legal, and cocaine is a long, long way off, if there are ever enough users to merit its legalization.

Zealots tend to push too far, though. They either break the camel's back, or they have full control over the population.

Yes. And why did they feel they needed a constitutional amendment to ban it, but no amendment needed to ban heroin. What's with the asymmetry?

Who would use meth if coke were legal

In the very literal sense? Yes.

However, it's taboo. These same niggers who think anyone who believes the earth is flat must be retarded refuse to accept drug laws don't work.

It's almost like doing drugs or not is factored without government opinion anyway...

Not against decriminalizing all drugs but don't you think if it was easily accesible it would cause more deaths ?

>drug laws don't work.
unconditional drug legalization would be even worse. much worse.

Because the minorities were getting rich be selling it during prohibition. The govt realize black markets create huge profits. So they keep certain drugs black so they can reap the profits.

>The reason alcohol isn't illegal is because the jews want you to be drunk and pacified
ftfy

To illustrate my point, who here's running out to smoke meth just because it's made legal today?

Humor me, why would it?

jews also want to legalize marijuana, for the same reason

over the long term if it isn't even illegal there will be less of a deterrance to doing meth. Lab blowing up in your face? No longer a problem. Police tacking charges on you? No longer a problem. Job market? Still desperate and many other people do it, so why not.

this comment is retarded

>every drug is alcohol
no

Yea. Lots of things should be legal but offset by instilling a sense of personal responsibility and teaching people good judgement and rewarding them for it.

Life needs bigger risks and bigger rewards.

>The reason alcohol isn't illegal is because prohibition was a failure and people did it anyway
But that's wrong. All drugs should be legal since they damage the individual who chose to use them. Lurk more

One is easy to produce. One gets your house condemned due to chemicals. But there are worse things than death. You've obviously never met a meth head or an alcoholic. One is significantly more productive and less brain dead.

I agree fucking alcoholics.

At least meth heads make funny noises.

>Not against decriminalizing all guns but don't you think if it was easily accesible it would cause more deaths ?

growing poppies and harvesting the opium is easy
even a child could do it
hell, it's even easier than growing good pot
and cocaine is easy to make as well, it's just harder to grow tropical plants in the US
LSD isn't that hard to make (as far as chemical synthesis goes), but getting the materials to make it is hard because of government restrictions
meth is so easy to make....that's why it's everywhere....any idiot who can pass high school chem can learn to make meth in an afternoon

so many restrictions on plants in the US, but I can grow hemlock and belladonna and datura and angel's trumpet
I can grow most any deadly mushroom, legally
I can grow castor beans and make ricin...no restrictions on growing castor beans at all

the drug restrictions aren't there for the good of society, they're there for the protection of pharmaceutical companies' profits while requiring a large police state to enforce what basically amounts to an increasing number of morality laws....and a system of imprisonment for the morally deficient in a for-profit prison system

The liquor industry is the reason so many other drugs are illegal. The liquor industry doesn't want competition. Why does the liquor industry think it has a monopoly on chemical induced fun? Why does alcohol have permission to kill people but other drugs don't?

Marijuana, Psychedelics and BU08028 - Yes
Everything else - No

Alcohol and tobacco kill way more than cocaine, heroin, and meth combined. Even if those drugs were legal and easily available.

A LOT more people use alcohol than meth. If people used meth as much as alcohol, the deaths would be nearly astronomical.

Good posts

>Even if those drugs were legal and easily available.
Nope

look at southern russia for instance.

I highly doubt that. Tobacco might have one of the top positions, but certainly not alcohol. You fail to consider that even if those hard drugs were made legal and available, even if our generation and the generation next didn't use it that much, a future generation eventually would, and it would be an inhumane disaster. A lot of people would die, there would be a spike in poverty, and many, many lives would be ruined.

It's pretty close when you drink any time other than holidays and special occasions. Daily alcohol consumption is very bad, alcohol is a NEUROTOXIN.

I assure you, daily meth consumption is so much worse than daily alcohol consumption.

Banning or permitting substances is all based on economics user. Even the politics of banning and permitting substances can be traced to the economics of trading and delivering drugs to the population. If a substance does not servery affect the working capacity of individuals, then banning it essentially gives you control over its black market. Your proposition cites the prohibition as an example. You have to understand the economics behind prohibition. Who benefited from prohibition (the mob - Al Capone, the corrupt police, the local politicians)? Why was it taken away from the general public? Was it to increase production, or was it truly to implement a great experiment as it was advertised.

It was initially implemented because politicians could garner votes (hard-core protestants blamed alcohol for a lot of domestic problems). There was no adverse effect for politicians in banning alcohol - they would gain political capital by doing so, and all black markets essentially exist only because of the blessings of one ore more congressmen/women. Understand that normies are never told the real motivation behind the passage of laws. Politicians are also good salespeople. They have to sell laws to the public in such a way that it is palatable. Thus, prohibition was advertised as a great experiment which would improve social and family life.

However, the black market for alcohol became more popular than the prohibition (Al Capone was advertised like a celebrity because he mixed with celebrities and politicians). Thus it became beneficial for politicians to arrest Al Capone and repeal prohibition because that would provide them with the political capital in those times.

What you speak of, extending the logic behind prohibition to drugs, is a totally different issue. You're dealing with multiple fronts for drugs since they can be addictive even to normal human beings with healthy lifestyles.

>Banning or permitting substances is all based on economics user.
Not necessarily. There are some drugs where the laws of morality do ring relevant.

That is why I consume it. I going to die anyway. T. drunk 56%er.

>If a substance does not servery affect the working capacity of individuals, then banning it essentially gives you control over its black market
What do you mean by that?

>Not necessarily. There are some drugs where the laws of morality do ring relevant.

Morality is for normies user. That's how you sell the control and ban of substances to the voting population. There are no drugs which are banned based on morals. All the hard core drugs (cocaine, lsd, meth, dmt, heroin), are kept from the public because it adversely affects the productivity of the working population.

Imagine being the wealthy owner of a population. You honestly don't care about drug laws because either way you have access to drugs. Hardcore Christian and other religious groups push for banning of drugs, because like you, they believe its immoral. You've gone high multiple times, and you know that if normal people started doing drugs, your profits would go down because most of the day would disappear in a drug induced high. So what do you do? You just don't support laws that permit the sale of drugs. You don't have to advocate for it it since normies will always be there to advocate for it, you just don't oppose any anti-drug laws.

Imagine yourself as the politician. You profit off the black market because you receive a cut from the local drug dealers who want your political protection in return. Would you oppose the groups that advocate for banning drugs? No, you profit off the black market anyway, and by supporting the banning of drugs, you keep your political capital.

Shit, the laws on cocaine were even passed to ensure the black population was asymmetrically affected (more stringent laws for crack cocaine than powder cocaine).

Banning drugs is always about economics and not about morals for those in power.

>So by that logic shouldn't every drug be legal since people do them anyway?
Yes, every drug should be legal.

>and people did it anyway.
>paid more for unchecked lower grade alcohol
Most are morons that's the IQ average is mostly below 100 on all nations and alcohol is not cocaine or meth or krokodil etc.
Drugs should be included in medical prescriptions but not sold with no restrictions.

>not readily available and you have to deal with criminals to get it

Same is true for weed though. It was very fucking common once

> if you can make it on accident, it should be legal.

> pot and alcohol.

All drugs should be legal, let the addicts die. Everything will stay illegal because the war on drugs is big business, everyone knows this.

The oil industry made prohibition happen. We would be driving alcohol fueled cars on anything that can be fermented otherwise.

Is there any research about how marijuana use had increased after states legalised it? I doubt it would be substantial, only more people admitting it maybe.

I don't think all drugs are immoral.
See: I actually encourage the use of Psychedelics, especially for this time, when environmental disaster and Nuclear War are imminent.

I'm aware that many in power profit from prohibition.

You guys are leaving out the fact that alcohol is easy to make, it even happens by accident. Plus there was a lot of bad alcohol that blinded people etc. There was some serious health consequences to removing it from regulation. Drugs are similar in that latter respect but the stigma is strong.

Yes. You figured it out.

>If a substance does not servery affect the working capacity of individuals, then banning it essentially gives you control over its black market

If a substance does not severely affect the working capacity of individuals, and the drug is desired by a section of the population (like weed), then banning the drug gives you control over its black market because no drug dealer operates independently.

Drug peddling is profitable because its banned and not because you get it easily. So drug dealers make a lot of money. However, almost always, the law enforcement agencies know about the existence of black markets on drugs. They let it exist because they'll receive a cut. As a politician, you have access to the local drug dealers through the corrupt cops who allow it to exist in the first place.

By selectively prosecuting drug dealers based on their cooperation/non-cooperation, the politicians and cops in an area can control the black market, profits, cuts. revenue, etc.

This works in a similar fashion for drugs that are more debilitating (heroin, lsd, meth), but the the market is different. If you allow debilitating drugs to be peddled in your area, and the population becomes addicted, then as a politician, or a corrupt cop, you're now exposed to a "white knight" who'll campaign on cleaning up the mess. Thus, you risk losing your power, or worse, be thrown in jail if you allow the sale of hard core drugs.

However, the above point is not true for hard core drugs if there is large scale collusion among politicians and cops. If the politicians control who runs for office, then they can allow the sale of hard core drugs in certain regions without any adverse affects.

Having said that, no politician is usually dumb enough to expose the industrial areas of his/her country to hard core drugs. That screws with their revenue and political power in the long run.

>The reason alcohol isn't illegal
Is to make it easier for guys to get laid.

that weed wasn't full of THC. Smoking MJ to get high is a rather recent occurrence.

See: It would eventually happen, whether you believe it or not.
And just clarifying, I'm not against all drugs:

It should be legal to consume, but the production and distribution should be regulated.

Sewer hobos were happy that day

independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html

Because 100s of millions consume alchohol daily. 100 thousand might do meth.

Math motherfucker

>If people used meth as much as alcohol, the deaths would be nearly astronomical.
whats wrong with that?

Prohibition was a success, even the degenerates admit it:

nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

Of course prohibition works, it's common sense. You don't see flaming faggots walking hand in hand in Saudi-Arabia. When there are consequences, people adapt.

>All drugs should be legal, let the addicts die.

You sound like a person who's never done drugs. I was (to a certain extent still am) addicted to nicotine. It was just a casual smoke with friends that got me into it. Quitting nictone is fucking hard user, and I don't have any issues with my life. I can only imagine how hard it is for people who do cocaine to quit it.

Yes.

Sure you can talk about potency increasing recently but people have been smoking weed to get high for centuries. Fucking Herodotus wrote about the Scythians smoking cannabis to get high. Hash has also been around since like 800 AD.

Opium was never take recreationally? Hahaha are you stupid? Opium has been around forever in many forms all around the world

I DON'T WANT NO FUCKIN BUNK GOVERNMENT WEED

>"b-b-but they're going to do it anyway!"

Why not get rid of all laws then?

>>If people used meth as much as alcohol, the deaths would be nearly astronomical.
>whats wrong with that?

Then who's going to produce goods and services in your country? You'll be importing immigrants faster than the fatherland.

Another one: theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay

Singapore does not fuck around with this shit and has one of the lowest drug abuse rates in the world.

Oh look Americans arguing over whether alcohol is good or bad again.
Just shut up and enjoy a pint you plonka's.

>Then who's going to produce goods and services in your country?
other countries, as usual

That's actually a really good argument.

Prohibition wasn't a failure, though.

nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

Drug legalization is a tricky issue. On the one hand, legalization would put a ton of blacks out of work, which is a good thing. On the other, it would enrich a lot of jews, which is a bad thing.

>/opinion/

>Claim prohibition wasn't a failure
>Cite NY Times opinion piece.

Kys, both of you.

>nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html
The piece contains numbers, degenerate.

>>Then who's going to produce goods and services in your country?
>other countries, as usual

Well, this is what happens when you hit the joint one too many times.

If you're wholly dependent on other countries for your goods and services, that means you'll get invaded. Then no more drugs.

Your approach is not sustainable and that's the whole point of the argument.

>The piece contains numbers, degenerate.

From the Netherlands. Calls others degenerate.

>Checks out.


>cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/alcohol-prohibition-was-failure

>mtholyoke.edu/~bernt22l/classweb/Liana/Failure.html

>pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/unintended-consequences/

>cbsnews.com/news/prohibition-americas-failed-noble-experiment/

and wherever it has gone it has left death and suffering

Do you think just because it's legal everyone would go out and do meth? Of course not, it's stupid to think that just because something's legal everyone will do it. At least it will be much safer for the users if it were legal.
Think about this, does everyone smoke since it's legal? No, they do not.

alcohol is degeneracy, repealing prohibition was a mistake.

>ban everything I don't like because I'm a child who likes to have my hand held
fuck off cunt, just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be banned.

They should legalize murder, people do it anyway

Drugs will never be legal. There are many powerful interests between high-ranked military members and politicians around the world while it is illegal. I'm sure none of this guys wanted to stop receiving thousands in bribes by the drug cartels for just seeing the other way