Them libtards as an argument for legalizing dope always mention the "Prohibition Era" and how it was a disaster, and failed.
Do they have a point? What's pol's take on this?
Prohibition and drugs
Other urls found in this thread:
sciencedirect.com
ukcia.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
jamanetwork.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
journals.plos.org
pnas.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
journals.plos.org
journals.plos.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
sciencedirect.com
journals.plos.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
nature.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
monaldi-archives.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
nature.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
They don't. Junkies love to defend their God Drug that they'll do anything to protect it.
Yes, they do.
Daily reminder that by making goods illegal Jew profits and gentiles suffer.
>you want to have that gold-backed currency, goy? I don't think so
>you want to have those easily grown drug containing cash crop plants, goy? I don't think so
>you want to have those guns goy, goy? I don't think so
But why did the prohibiion fail?
I don't think dope should be legalized, but this SEEMS to be a point they have when speaking about the subject.
There's going to be demand for weed because it's a useful product. Having a direct war and a century long propaganda war on it has not affected it at all. In fact, the cultivation methods have become exponentially more productive under the black market.
Prohibition era for alcohol lead to increases in violent crime and gangsters had so much money that Al Capone almost purchased a telecoms company and went legitimate. The Kennedys got into politics due to their alcohol fortune. Politicians decide the timescale for rolling out legal weed, which will happen in order to capture the market and turn a profit. That's bullshit because the people that got caught up in the game for doing the same thing illegally, and they're the ones patriotic enough to engage in civil disobedience instead of dishonest manipulation of our democracy.
>didn't kill any druggos
The same crap people will continue to own the buzz if it goes legal. These people have cash to transpoirt their product via submarine, you don't think they'll be able to manage a stand or a shop?
By legalizing it, we are giving them full amnesty, besides making it morally legitimate to poison our own people - since drugs, once incorporated into a society's habits, have a social and moral cost.
Prohibition is immoral.
>I don't think dope should be legalized
Why? Are you some kind of brainwashed statist?
Are you some kind of brainwashed liberal?
Weed's not a poison, that's a stupid rhetorical argument that has been rejected by the majority of voters in my state. Old people with chronic pain are the fastest growing demographic for marijuana use in legal states. You're literally causing grandmas physical and psychological pain by not letting them take a little "poison" during their last 8-20 years of their lives.
Medicinal marijuana is just a meme user.
It's a scam people use to go one step closer to legalization. 'Cause that's how them liberals work: they're deceitful. They won't show their cards right away, but instead will work to slowly change people's conception of what's right and wrong.
Plus, you don't need legalized recreational dope to make medicine out of pot. Do you really think they are fighting to legalize pot so a couple of grandmas can be rid of their pain?
Plus, the (((pharm industry))) would love to have a couple more (((medicines))) to sell.
The propaganda we are currently seeing for weed is identical to that of tobacco in years passed
I wager by the time we are all elderly, weed will be demonized as is Tobacco today, and they'll have a new "natural plant medicine" in its place
Their is nothing wrong with weed. Booze is a much worse vice.
The gubbermint says the devil's lettuce is bad and that's enough for me. God bless.
keeping drugs illegal only helps out objectively bad people
Unlike trump, weed has the potential to be helpful
The business of marijuana will continue unabated regardless of legalities. The only effect prohibition has on marijuana production is the location and who the taxes are paid to.
What is this? /leftypol/?
Bozze is already part of our culture. It has been since times immemorial. It is a evil you can't uproot.
Same doesn't apply to dope.
Can't we just try freedom and let the gene pool sort itself out?
It's fucking ridiculous that people are regurgitating the good goy anti-drug propaganda we've heard from our government for the better part of a century, on no stronger argument than 'muh degeneracy'.
Every time I see fox go on an anti-pot tirade with the most cherrypicked data ive ever seen, I remember that they are still MSM and not infallible.
OPIATES ARE THE PROBLEM
Let me quote the unnamed Detroit mob boss in The Godfather:
>I don't want it in schools, I don't want it sold to children
>Sell it to the niggers tho. They're animals anyway, so let them lose their souls.
the prohibition era was a failure. It normalized street violence over a leisure item, kicked the technology race between cops n' robbers into overdrive, and to top it off was caused by grandstanding virtue signalers that manipulated the government into thinking it was a good idea.
I'm for legalizing, but only because I won't partake and have no investment in the actual final result. If it can make money and isn't actually hurting anyone, fine. Since I've only seen and heard of it hurting others via the "lace it with heroin to have repeat customers" schtick, it's fine. If others do nothing but use it exclusively and ruin their own lives, that's their own fault.
Just go look up the opium problems in british controlled china.
Hyper addictive drugs cause problems for societies.
Does anyone have any good links to the history of Prohibition?
>Weed raises Estrogen levels:
sciencedirect.com
>Weed decreases testosterone and growth hormone, tobacco increases them (but also raises cortisol which is a catabolic hormone):
ukcia.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>Weed Reduces Volume Of Various Regions Of The Brain And Negatively Effects Motivation :
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>Weed Is Addictive:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>Weed Causes Long Term Cognitive Damage:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
jamanetwork.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
journals.plos.org
pnas.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>Weed Causes Depression And Anxiety Disorders:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
journals.plos.org
journals.plos.org
>Weed Causes Psychotic Disorders:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>Children of Fathers that Smoke Weed More Likely To Suffer Sudden Infant Death Syndrome:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>Weed Legalisation Results In More Frequent Use:
sciencedirect.com
journals.plos.org
>Weed Causes Lung Damage:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
nature.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
monaldi-archives.org
>Secondhand Weed Smoke Impairs Psychomotor Function And Working Memory:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>Weed Worsens Symptoms Of Social Anxiety Disorder:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>Weed Causes Deficits In Dopamine Release:
nature.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
Prohibition of any good creates a demand for said good on a black market typically. Prohibition is bad. There’s so many on Sup Forums who believe the meme about it being degenerate or making you lazy (you were already lazy, weed didn’t cause it). Why doesn’t most of Sup Forums gravitate towards a more libertarian ideology and leave other people the fuck alone?
Same reason the War on Drugs is failing. You can't legislate morality and it's next to impossible to enforce. Of people want to get high they will and it's next to impossible to stop them.
If your talking about cartels setting up shop legally and getting amnesty I think your reaching a bit. Those groups have still commited tax evasion, fraud, bribery, extortion, murder, and a deluge of other corrupt and violent crimes. They won't be able to compete legally, and besides, druglords want the shit to stay illegal because it makes the business insanely profitable. Prices could not remain as high as they are in an open market, so addicts would actually be less of a problem because for 20 dollars they could get what costs them 100+ dollars today.
In Canada we legalized weed, but it can only be sold by stores own by the province. Commie voting weeders are complaining about the government getting too involved. lmao
Big pharma lobbys against medicinal marijuana because it treats so many different ailments that they lose customers. People with chronic pain, anxiety, insomnia, nausea, ect. All switching to pot instead of some random pill with unknown side effects. That hurts big pharma.
If those crimes could be proven, the justice system would take 'em out.
In fact, those organisations operate in a fashion so that the top guys aren't implicated. So they'll have clean names to go legit.
As for the price thingie, you really think they wouldn't tax dope like they do with alcohol and tobacco?
Don't you know that there's a huge black market for these goods, even though they are legal?
they also have the wealth to turn it into a monopoly, as they probably will once it goes full legal.
it's actually better for them, since they would be able to market one product instead of many in a one-size-fits-all propose to the market.
why wouldn't people want to buy that?
It's a plant, not a pill. You can't monopolize a plant because anybody with seeds and sunlight can manufacture their own medicine. Legal weed is not in the rational self interest of any pharmaceutical company.
user up there just gave you an aswer with numerous sources. We can't leave other people fucking alone because their shit habits will eventually cause te destruction of the fabric of society. Plus healthcare to support their vices.
It may be true that prohibition creates a demand by making it harder to reach a destined good, but the fact that something is legal doesn't imply the absence of black markets.
People get to buy tobacco too, but they don't.
The tobacco industry monopolizes it.
Just as will happen with weed.
If we're talking meds, there's nothing that will avoid the pharm guys from making a medicine in the form of a pill or some kind of syrup.
>smoking a plant is the degradation that will end society
ITT: confirmation bias
Of course they would tax it, but without it being illegal there would be more people in the market and production and delivery systems would be more efficient. As for the druglords, many of them stay afloat by bribing police and politicians. Everyone knew what Pablo Escabar was up to, but no one touched him because of his influence.
lol the guy just provided info that proves it's a nasty thing to have in a collective level.
It's not THE degradation, but one can't deny it's part of the problem.
But have it this way: them lefties are always saying that the government should provide "help" to those "poor sick people" by providing "safe methods" for them to engage in substance abuse (risk reduction policies).
You really want your tax dollars funding someone else's vice?
Anyone can Grow weed. If I didn't like what the big marijuana producers were doing to their product, I could grow my own. Also big pharma has facilities designed to produce chemicals, not grow plants.
There's a tremendous amount wrong with that statement. Suffice it to say that your addicted to the state, and have absolutely no conception of a free and voluntary society.
Still doesn't change the fact that it would be probably heavily taxed, so the argument for "finding it for a non-hefty price" doesn't add up.
There's also no guarantee that goods are better and more efficiently delivered to markets just because they are legal.
Isn't easier to bribe/dodge the legal system/cops if the allegations against you are less severe? We can assume that, since the core of a drug lord's operations are now entirely legal.
> Prices could not remain as high as they are in an open market
Much better weed much healthier and cheaper here in Washington state. Read a couple of years ago that 50% of cartel revenue is weed money. Were legalization go federal, tell me that's not a kick in the nuts to cartels.
It was the moment that should have brought men to their senses about suffrage
Anyone can Grow tobacco. If I didn't like what the tobacco industry is doing to their product, I could grow my own.
Doesn't quite stick, does it?
>There is absolutely no evidence that price is lower because something is legal
.... I dont know how to respond to that.
It actually does. Do you need me to pull up the links to tabbaco seeds? You can buy the shit online. If you don't believe me, Google it.
The way it goes: substance made legal - state regulates it to some degree - imposition of taxes.
now we know that legal drugs are heavily taxed. Why wouldn't weed?
you can come up with figures that prove that a significant amount of smokers do plant their tobacco, since that's what you think will happen with weed.
most people don't want to go through the process, since it's way more convenient to buy it at the local thriftstore. same thing will happen with weed.
>State rights!
>Personal freedom!
>Want to smoke a silly plant? Lol enjoy life in prison you hippie degenerate
When Republicans cry about individual liberties, it's codeword for "Anything that I don't find morally objectionable". So much for small government, Republicans are the biggest boot-lickers.
Taxes effect the price of a product less than declaring it contraband. I don't like resorting to ad hominids, but I think your objectively fucking stupid.
Breaking News; Drugs have side effects
Everything you've listed is thousands of times less harmful than tobacco and alcohol.
What people choose is not my problem. Its not my job to regulate society. If you want to grow your tobacco or weed, good for you. If you want to buy it from a large company, good for you. If you want the government to tell me what I can and cannot consume at the threat of imprisonment, or death If I resist, the please throw yourself out of a rotary aircraft at a high altitude.
The idea that there should be one law from Maine to California is absurd. Different parts of the country have different values and it is waste effort to try to make faggots in Oregon love like folks in Georgia. Let the states decide, I say. Such a move is the only way we could pull the country in a more
Moral direction
This.
I mean yeah, prohibition doesn't work at all and you'd be hard to press to find anyone that doesn't agree with that statement unless they're a die hard moralist of sorts. Compared to other drugs weed does shit all compared to stuff like ICE that turns you legit violent. Legalize, tax and regulate weed. As for the hard drugs out there criminalize the production and selling of it but decriminalize the use of it. Drug use is a health problem, not a criminal one. Throwing junkies in prision ain't gonna solve shit.
It's incredibly difficult to manufacture quality tobacco, that's why people buy cigs. Weed stores are nice because they have a variety of products and have reliable service, but they're very expensive in my state and i usually just pickup from my friends. Usually my friends produce high-quality crops, but I like the stores because they have a variety of weed and that helps you decide how high you wanna get.
There's nothing wrong with smoking pot. OP is a dick spank.
The thing you need to understand is that every law has a cost on society. It takes time, and money to enforce laws, money that could be spent on other, arguably more important things. The pursuit, or refusal to pursue the enforcement of laws influences how the government and law enforcement are perceived by the public, and the behavior of the members of that society. For example, the way the war on drugs has made things like no-knock raids, and wild 4th amendment violations such as asset-forfeiture commonplace. These things have in turn affected how many people view and interact with law enforcement.
Leaving the morality, or lack thereof of imposing ones arbitrary views about "vice" on other people aside, you need to ask yourself
1. What benefit is gained by the application of this law?
2. What drawbacks are incurred by the application of this law?
The drawbacks of prohibition were severe: it imprisoned and killed otherwise law-abiding (read tax-paying) individuals, it empowered the mafia, and they had negative impacts on politics via bribes and businesses vs protection rackets and the like. It gave the police an easy excuse to interfere with people, and expanded their power beyond what they should have in a society of free individuals. Lives and families on both sides of the law were destroyed, I could go on, but that should make it clear that there were significant drawbacks to prohibition.
So then what was gained in exchange for all this? Nothing. There were no benefits to society at all, yet there were significant, and far-reaching drawbacks, ergo, prohibition specifically, and the whole idea of legislated morality in general is disaster.
But I don't like it!! And the law should be about locking up people that are different from me!
An interesting part of history most people don't talk about is that after Prohibition the gangs still controlled the liquor trade. Since they avoided taxes they could undercut competitors and create a hidden monopoly. My dad's side of the family owned a bar that got liquor from Capone's outfit well into the 40s.
>I want small government
>I want all things I disagree with to be illegal and have a multi-billion dollar enforcement program
Dude...I have 2 recreational pot stores within a few miles of my house. Much cheaper and nearly every strain is more potent than the baddest Humboldt county skunk or the good shit from Hawaii back in the 80s. The state taxes it 25% AND IT'S STILL CHEAPER. Not gonna' call you a retard, but YOU ARE WRONG on this one. Cut your losses, bud.
All drugs should be legal.
Amounts and concentrations regulated.
Tax more those that cause most harm.
Use revenue to help people.
Have addicts treated as patients.
BTFO of ALcohol
I'm just going to say that prohibition of any kind completely defies the most basic principles of capitalism. if there is a demand for a product, someone will be willing to supply it regardless of the legality of it. It's safe to say there will always be a demand for drugs. By legalizing and regulating their sale, we at least take power away from Juan and Pedro smuggling it across the border, and make some pretty decent sales tax off of it.
This is the problem with having states legalize. In Massachusetts there is so much corruption. They legalized during the 2016 election and while Alaska got weed stores, Governor Baker keeps announcing a pushback date for weed stores to open. Politicians that informed their friends on when to invest saved them hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, and everyone else got fucked.
From what I understand prohibition was just a meme that led to the formation of strong organised crime that still affects America, same with the le war on drugs all is does is create a parallel government so that the current government officials and crime organization can make extra money on the side while punishing people for practicing basic human requirements.
This is honestly the best solution there is.
Even with extreme drugs like meth or heroin. Having the government (or regulated agencies) supply the drug ensures that accidental overdoses via contaminated products are cut down to zero. The burden on healthcare is significantly decreased, and addicts can have easily available access to treatment programs or alternatives if the stigma was reduced.
Harm-reduction works. Decriminalization and legalization work. We've seen it with historical prohibition examples, and with modern ones. The only thing stopping this is Puritan moralists bitching about "muh degeneracy stop liking what I don't like reeeee"
Ô seu jumento, olha os efeitos da guerra às drogas no Brasil e me fala se tá dando certo.
"Álcool é parte da nossa cultura" = eu quero proibir só o que eu não gosto. Odeio maconheiro mas isso não é argumento pra proibir nada
Boomers are fighting a losing battle with marijuana, no ifs ands or buts about it.
English board, I hate it when south American start speaking their monkey language, ENGLISH BOARD YO UMA DELICIA SOMEWHERE ELSE
Learn to use a toilet before calling anyone a monkey
Translation = OP is an idiot
We're talking about prohibition in First World countries, both of you savages please go to
Kek, shut up or send harpreet to beat you up
Then stop speaking in your monkey language on English boards
Nah, they ALWAYS mention alcohol.
>Then niggers.
Prohibition is part en parcel of RACE WARZ.
OP comments are so autistic I had to respond in his (our) language for him to understand. I know where he is coming from, the "conservatives" in Brazil are limited to making fun of leftists and praising the almighty USA and Israel. They are completely clueless about economics and the JQ
kek, the british just gave the gooks opium so they could rule over them. Learn to history.