The Myth That Prohibition Didn’t Work

[four1298]

Reason.com says, "[Prohibition] didn't work out well." I think therefore they say current laws against drug usage don't work either. I've heard liberals use that logic. Surely, prohibition must have worked. It must have reduced alcohol consumption because people wouldn't want to be arrested. Sure, some people may have gone to speakeasies, but not all former alcohol consumers. The idea that "it doesn't work so it should be legal" can be applied to other crimes. If people continued to drink during prohibition, it's because the law didn't go far enough. If there were speakeasies, the police should've gone after them. Just because crime is being committed, it doesn't mean the crime should be legalized. It's like saying murder should be legalized because there's some people who disobey the laws against that.


I don't think marijuana and other drugs should be legal. I made a post on this. Drugs aren't a victimless crime. The victim is the consumer who becomes addicted to it, causing him to lose money. Drugs are also known to cause overdose and death. As for alcohol, there's a case for prohibition. Alcohol addicts develop cirrhosis and become a burden on the health system. For example, Reason.com says "economists Jeffrey Miron and Angela K... estimated that national prohibition reduced cirrhosis by 10 to 20 percent." That article says it increased homicide. Perhaps it did. Perhaps it did not. Even if it's true Probibition did reduce death overall.

 

[Ryo_Hazuki]

I mean I agree that alcohol is a net detriment to society. Drunk driving accidents, liver disease related deaths, birth defects, infant mortality, etc. Not to mention in a world where obesity is a major problem, people consuming empty liquid calories definitely negatively contributes to the collective health of the population.

Also I don't think the argument is that "prohibition didn't reduce alcohol consumption". It pretty clearly did, I don't think many people dispute that. It's more of an issue of cost of enforcement. Yes, you could get the police to shut down illegal bars, but new ones would pop up. The barrier of entry when it comes to homebrewing is too low. It's not like cocaine or fentanyl. So it would take a lot of money and manpower to enforce such a ban, so much so that it wouldn't be worth it, and wasn't worth it even back then.

We can't even properly deal with the fentanyl epidemic in america. Not to mention we're a low trust society now. Crime is rampant in a lot of cities. We can't even properly enforce the laws we have now. I feel safer when I'm abroad (even in 3rd world countries) than I do in my own city. There's much bigger fish to fry.

Also violent crimes and drug addiction went up during prohibition, and it's not hard to understand why. For a lot of incels, divorcedcels, betabuxxers in loveless marriages, and other people with shitty lives, alcohol is their only cope. What do you think is going to happen if you take it away?

There are a lot of things that it would be better for society if it simply didn't exist, but using the state to ban it usually isn't the best idea as the cost of enforcement, and the consequences of banning it (such as people replacing it with something even worse) makes it not worth it in most cases.

 

[Pancakecel]

Drugs and alcohol are a good cope sometimes, otherwise it's just non stop misery.