Lets look back in history to see how well prohibition has worked in the past.
The exact same result happened back in the 1920's with the prohibition of alcohol. The 1920's prohibition resulted in nothing more than the rise of the Mafia.
Back in the 1920's there was similar waste of government money fighting alcohol, only to see the rise in the power of the Mafia.
Move forward to today's 'war on drugs' and once again government is wasting massive amounts of public money trying fighting a loosing war.
The harder the fight the richer the drug kings become.
But now the states decide to go softer on a 'war on what ever' and guess what, the 'drug kings' once again start to loose money.
1) The mafia didn't only deal in alcohol. Prostitution and gambling, two other popular-but-illegal things were often controlled by organized crime. Prohibition did allow organized crime a boom where they could squirrel away money and use it for their enterprises later on, which explains their presence after the fact.
2) I'm not sure that police deaths are the best metric, since most of the violence during prohibition was carried out by gangs against other gangs. Given enough police corruption, violence wasn't even necessary.
3) How about cocaine followed by crack cocaine?
4) That doesn't mean we couldn't be less violent and more peaceful, and it doesn't mean that our law enforcement resources are efficiently allocated.
In the places where prostitution is legal (Netherlands, Germany, Austria, New Zealand...) there is still a huge criminal organisation built around human trafficking. Most prostitutes in such countries are poorer immigrant women from neighbouring countries in economic desperation, and very frequently acting against their will.
Not every popular-but-illegal activity benefits from becoming legal. Selling alcohol is very different from selling people. Don't conflate the two activities.
Selling people is very different from allowing people to sell their services. Don't conflate the two activities.
Seriously, the existence of problems related to legal prostitution in any particular location doesn't necessarily indict the entire practice. Also, in close analogy with drug prohibition, the state gives criminals space to thrive whenever it limits the free movement of people.
As I said in a reply, 'jordigh has an important, correct point about a certain segment of the market. I upvoted, and I'd appreciate if others did as well in order to ungray this:
They're not selling a service. They're selling their bodies. With a service, someone is performing something, not having something done to them. With a service, the more experienced practitioners are more valuable. With prostitution the opposite is true: the least experienced people are the most valuable, and there is no training required nor even desired.
It's not a job when the most desirable "employees" are the least experienced ones.
With a service, someone is performing something, not having something done to them
The idea that sex is having something done to you, as opposed to something you're doing for or with someone, strikes me as a rather old-fashioned and sexist attitude. I'd like to believe that my wife and I share something better than that.
Of course, there are a lot of personal values tied up in this question, so I don't think that either your opinion or mine necessarily prevails. That being the case, I think the best indicator is what each individual chooses to do of their own free will.
Sex can certainly be done to someone, and comparing prostitution sex with marital sex is a bit disingenous. I imagine you don't pay your wife each time you two want to have sex, nor that she would have sex with you only if she had few other options left.
The problem with "what each individual chooses" and prostitution is that it's extremely difficult to get an accurate reading of what people truly want. There's lots of coercion, pressure, and outright threats. I think it's fair to say that given the opportunity, most people would not choose prostitution. It's very important to have a society where no one ever feels the need to become a prostitute.
The whole "consent" argument also tries to ignore the question of harm. If someone consents to be harmed, should we harm them? If a drug addict wants to keep drugging themselves, should we not do anything about it? I'm not outright saying that prostitution harms every prostituted person or not, just that this question should be considered, not elided with the "consent" argument.
The implicit assumptions that ones' choice to have sex with strangers for money is coerced, wrong, constitutes self harm, and must be protected against are telling a story that denies the people who make that choice the very same autonomy such a statement pretends to protect against.
I'd say that is incorrect and based on incomplete understanding. I'd say it's a choice, made, no matter how incomprehensible, for money. Like other choices people make, eg choosing such and such career path, or such and such relationship, sometimes there's peer pressure. And because it's connected with orchestration by criminal enterprises, tainted by that association. However, when you come down to it, people could sell themselves before criminals wanted a cut. It works to consider how you might come to make that choice, and whether your assumptions about prostitutes are filtered through the landscape of what you perceive as your own possible choices.
So before I pronounce prostitutes as victims to fit a narrative of exploitation I've chosen (seductive also for it suggests my moral superiority that I would never make such a choice! :), maybe I'll remember it doesn't work to victimize the people I'm talking about by pretending they had no autonomy. Isn't that, the very same hypocrisy I'm trying to accuse others of? Using a person for a purpose? And when that person may have done the choosing, and I in my argument may be doing the using, haven't I neatly reversed the roles all by myself, and undermined the very argument I was making?
Tl;Dr - when you're talking about people you want to paint as victims it works to consider them as autonomous,
choice making beings, to gain more accurate insight,
even tho it's seductive to pretend that somehow you've more autonomy than they.
Stl;Dr - fantasising that prostitutes have no autonomy is trying to use them for an intellectual "dry sex", without paying, for the sake of argument without their consent! Definitely only for scoundrels!! :)
I think it's fair to say that given the opportunity, most people would not choose prostitution.
Given the opportunity, most people would not choose to work.
That being said, from my neighbourhood, women who did chose prostitution could have done some other work instead. They picked prostitution because it was 1. easier and 2. it paid better.
Being a stripper and being a hooker are different things, but I think there's a high degree of correlation.
I've known three strippers (for reasons unrelated to their careers), and I know for certain that in all cases their choice of profession was absolutely a personal choice. The cost/benefit opportunity was the best one open to them, and they took it.
Like I said, stripping isn't the same thing, and of course anecdote isn't the singular of data. But my experience personally, and what I hear second-hand elsewhere, makes it difficult for me to believe that violence and force are significant factors in that world. And to the extent that they are present, it seems more likely that they enter the picture precisely because it's an outlaw black market lifestyle, and if allowed in the light of day that aspect would likely disappear.
I don't understand your point... at all. The relationship between a client and a prostitute is nothing like the relationship between a romantic couple. Do you really equate your relationship with your wife to that of a sex worker? Come on.
He's not, though I don't agree with him (think it's a him?). Yes, experienced prostitutes can and do charge more. but there is a parallel traffic in vulnerable prostitutes, for whom their pimps charge more because they are young or less willing/able to stand up for themselves.
I'm in favor of legalization, but there is some economic research suggesting that at least in the short term, expansion of the market for prostitution (through decriminalization or legalization) results in a net increase in illegal trafficking, because market sector growth >> the substitution effect (whereby many customers prefer the legal alternative). It's not the simple 'ban it or legalize it' dichotomy that advocates on both sides suggest.
...the least experienced people are the most valuable, and there is no training required nor even desired.
I think you're right about a certain segment of the market. After all, we know that pedophiles exist, so some "customers" would want the "services" of a child who lies there crying, which would require no "training". I think those would be few in number when compared to a legal market for adult prostitution, although they would necessarily be a larger portion of any illicit market.
I've always been curious about this. Sure human trafficking brings poor women in against their will but what happens then? They obviously can't work in legal brothels because they wouldn't have a work permit and I'm not sure who would visit shady illegal brothels if legal brothels existed or even where they would be set up.
Also, in a country with legal prostitution, aren't there regular inspections? interviews with the workers? I can understand in a poor country but how are these women being held against their will in shady establishments in a country with strong laws and an effective police force.
i believe it is legal in the UK, but lots of activities related to it (e.g. running a brothel, soliciting it in public places) are illegal.
afaik (i have no real, direct, experience of this tbh, so don't quote me) there are none of these safety measures that you see in Vegas or Amsterdam etc. its basically treated as a form of self employment and is completely unregulated.
you should also consider the psychologies of vulnerable and desperate young women and criminal gangs. there is a long history of techniques they will both use to avoid problems with the police and both types will see it as protecting themselves from harm...
Oh but a number of them do work legally. Their masters pay all the fees to get them into the country and then they work off the loan for the rest of their life. This method isn't just used to import women.
Yes, but how does making prostitution illegal help against trafficking? It just makes the scene go (further) underground, and the actual victims can't even go to the police now because they get arrested themselves (albeit probably just instead of being deported immediately).
Also, I'd like to see a reference on the 'most' and 'frequently'.
This does not combat anything. The prostitute is trying to sell something to someone. Making it illegal for the customer to buy something from the prostitute does not solve anything. In fact, it discourages the customer from entering into the exchange.
There is a reason that a person chooses to be a prostitute. You may not agree with that person's decision, but criminalizing one party of the exchange doesn't change the prostitute's available choices. In many cases, prostitution is the only way to finance drug addiction, because of drug prohibition. You can criminalize any party -- the prostituted or the customer -- and it doesn't address the root issue, it only suppresses it.
"Making it illegal for the customer to buy something from the prostitute does not solve anything. In fact, it discourages the customer from entering into the exchange."
What it does is destroy the market for those exploiting prostitutes. I.e. traffickers. It changes very little for those who want to engage in sex with prostitutes.
"...there is still a huge criminal organisation built around human trafficking."
I'm slightly suspicious of these claims. I've seen reports about trafficking in my country showing numbers of foreign people trafficked that are completely unrealistic. NGOs are just making up these numbers when they are pleading to well-meaning but clueless people for donations.
The point here is that if someone can actually bring up evidence that there is a huge criminal organisation, then that organisation can be shut down effectively. But there is no evidence. It's a bit like so many conspiracy theories that tell about the secret conspiracy; the proof of existence of conspiracy consists of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence, because the conspiracy is so effective.
This is not good, but doesn't mean it's intrinsic to legalization. For example consider legalized gambling in Las Vegas. For decades it was intertwined with criminal activity and shady people. Eventually the regulation, laws, and legitimate business interests prevailed.
I don't believe that. Most prostitutes in the countries you mention render their services voluntarily. Could you please give credible references for your claim?
In the context of prostitution, the term "human trafficing" itself us primarily used for shaming purpose where prostitution is no longer illegal. For this reason it should be avoided like the plague.
I wonder if treatment of said prostitutes is improved because of its legality, and can be managed and legislated? If I understand your comment correctly you're saying all things being equal nothing has changed (for better or for worse) except now prostitution is legal. What I would say is if this is the case at least a legal framework allows the government to mandate improved work conditions, or cut down on illegal human trafficking etc if they want to.
3) Doesn't explain the statistical violence peaks of the 1970s and 1980s in our society.
I don't think the OP was making any correlation with crime in the 70s and 80s. You could however link that rise in crime to the spread of crack cocaine through NYC and LA if you really wanted to.
4) We are at one of the least violent and peaceful decades in US History
Interestingly enough, while that is true, our incarceration rate is the highest ever and it started just as the drug war started. See also The New Jim Crow [1]
And it's almost certainly bullshit. There is no correlation with crime rates and lead exposure. The pattern observed is a massive spike in crime during the '80s and '90s due to gang activity from the crack boom, which then falls back down to '60s/'70s levels afterward. What you'd expect to see if lead exposure was the problem is a very gradual increase over time and then a gradual tail off as exposure reduced. Instead the homicide rate doubled for folks under 25 between 1983 and 1993, and then fell back to 1980s levels by the early 2000s.
The background crime rate increase from the 1960s forward is more readily explained by societal changes, as well as the start of the "war on drugs".
the "Crack Epidemic" really didn't start till 1984. Though this doubled the murder rates in teens in minority groups it doesn't explain the 1970 - 1984 rise. Though the lead gasoline seems crazy but very interesting.
I suppose one could make the argument that one reason for the decline in crime rates is due to the fact that so many criminals are in prison. I don't necessarily agree with that, but the argument could be made.
But I've been led to believe that a large amount, if not majority, of drug crime prisoners are due to low-level and non-violent criminal acts. Many of the drug laws are extremely heavy-handed that puts many people in prison for little reason. If that's the case, I doubt most of these people would have contributed to violence statistics.
> 3) Doesn't explain the statistical violence peaks of the 1970s and 1980s in our society.
The statistical increase in crime rates that peaked then is largely well explained by the baby boom of the 1940s and 1950s and the widely-observed correlation between crime and the proportion of population that is adolescent to young adult males.
> 4) We are at one of the least violent and peaceful decades in US History
Which is also largely well explained by the same demographic effects.
Lead exposure through lead in gasoline also can explain some of both of these effects, as noted in other comments.
It's also noteworthy that most of the drug war is being fought in Mexico, where drug-related murders went up by a factor of 6 between 2006 and 2011. Also note that while we've had a small dip, we're still near an all-time high when it comes to incarceration rates in the US, despite lower crime rates.
The impression I get is that the entire illicit drug trade vertically integrated to increase profits and localized the competition aspect between suppliers (killing each other) to a geographic location where law enforcement is less capable and easier to buy off.
> The statistical increase in crime rates that peaked then is largely well explained by the baby boom of the 1940s and 1950s and the widely-observed correlation between crime and the proportion of population that is adolescent to young adult males.
Crime rates are based per 1000 so it is percentage based and not population based.
BUT the correlation young adult males makes senses. Right now we are starting the smallest proportion of young adult males that US has ever seen and it is going to keep getting smaller. I should dive into the percentage of young adult males and the crime rate and see what I come up with.
the baby boom is relevant not because of the overall size of the population, but because it created a demographic bulge that reached the critical age range starting in the 1960s, and peaking somewhere in the late 1970s to 1980s.
Could you elaborate on your point about the recording of crimes prior to the 1960? I'd be interested to see a source and a few google searches didn't bring up anything.
The rise in violent crime preceded the drug war. When Nixon uttered the phrase "drug war" in 1971, the violent crime rate had more than doubled since 1960. http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/1.... To a great extent, the drug war was a response to the increase in violent crime rates. People blamed drug use for the collapse of the social structure of the inner cities.
There was also the Vietnam War in progress, training 100s of 1000s of people in armed conflict. And there was the Civil Rights movement and the associated brutal crackdown. In other words, there was violence all around.
Last I've read, there are dozens of plausible-sounding theories, and none of them hold up all that well under serious analysis, at least as far as explaining the whole rise and fall. Maybe some or all of them are a little true, maybe it's something nobody's thought of or figured out yet.
I'm glad it wasn't only me that was thinking "wasn't it leaded gas?" ... I would like to find the citation for this though before I repeat it at cocktail parties.
I find that even those against prohibition support it for things they personally see as really really wrong. Even many of those who don't use drugs don't see pot as a major problem, only as something they don't want. And as such they don't support prohibition of it. But pick something that they do outright hate, and they will support prohibition regardless of how ineffective it may be.
Woah, dude chill out. First of all prohibition of prostitution has been shown to create the same problems as prohibition of alcohol and drugs. Its wrongly assigns the crime to the people at the bottom of the hierarchy. Its perfectly reasonable to conceive of a system of prostitution where everything is consensual and everyone is protected, which is what we have for alcohol and what people are fighting for with drugs. Let people do what they want as long as they aren't harming other people.
Child porn cannot exist under these terms. Science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that children cannot give informed consent and therefore cannot participate in the creation of pornography consensually. So to compare prohibition of alcohol, drugs, or prostitution to prohibition of child pornography doesn't hold up.
>Let people do what they want as long as they aren't harming other people.
Take alcohol. Ideally it doesn't directly cause harm to another individual. Now remind me again how many people are killed by drunk drivers each year? Now, is this alcohols fault? Or is it the drunk driver's fault? Or is it both? Or some fourth option? Well we've now reached a point where 'harming other people' is quite a subjective standard when determining what is causing that harm and thus what can be prohibited.
>Science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that children cannot give informed consent
Links?
Of the limited amount of science concerning informed consent that I've read (dealing with mentally disabled individuals ability to give informed consent), most teens would easily meet the standards set for a mentally disabled adult.
But we can avoid that whole moral quagmire by instead focusing on outlawed images that look like children but do not involve any children in their production (such as photorealistic CGI). Even when no one is harmed in making, would you still be for prohibition?
And swinging back round to prostitution, what about those who are financially coerced into it? Fully informed consent requires that one be both of age and not coerced. Thus someone who is financially coerced is incapable of consenting, which means that the parallels and comparisons made here do stick.
Finally, even if we say that the prohibition of A cannot be compared to prohibition of B, if the original point being made was that prohibition of anything fails, then it fails regardless if it is A or B being prohibited.
>what about those who are financially coerced into it?
You will never get a reply to this point. I've read feminists and non-feminists assert this reality, as you have, for about a year now and never come across an honest engagement with it. One has to begin to suspect unwillingness over inability.
1. Financial coercion for sex isn't like financial coercion for labor (which needs to be accompanied by a reasonable argument as to why).
2. Financial coercion for sex is like financial coercion for labor, and they are both done without consent (admitting that most labor is a form of slavery, albeit it not as bad as what people generally think of).
3. Financial coercion for sex is like financial coercion for labor, and as such financial coercion for sex still allows consent, which then leads to the conclusion that coercion (of at least some forms) is not sufficient for stating consent cannot be given.
2 can outright ignored because almost anyone making that argument will never actually live by it and are merely using it as an escape. So either an argument for 1 or to admit the conclusion of 3.
> 2 can outright ignored because almost anyone making that argument will never actually live by it and are merely using it as an escape.
Plenty of socialists seek fundamental reforms of the economic system to mitigate, to the extent possible, and to eliminate if possible, the economic coercion for labor generally, whether the labor involves sex or not, so I don't see how you can say that 2 is always just an escape when it comes to sex work. That position on labor in general is one of the major positions in economic politics in the world.
People make that argument, but if you see how they act, they do not treat it like slavery outside of their arguments.
To bring up another hot topic to show a comparison (because I am more familiar making this point with the other topic), look at a group of pro-life people who call abortion murder, yet do not react the same as if it were. They do not treat those who participate in abortion as child murderers, they do not go through the same extremes that people go through to stop child murder, they do not even fully support rhetoric to treat it like murder (those who seek to outlaw abortions almost never support it being treated as murder with the same penalties, including the doctor being charged similar to a hitman and the mother similar to someone who paid a hitman for a hit). Look how they will treat individuals who had abortions but then changed their view to pro-life compared to how they treat those who have committed acts such as legally murdering a child (or things of near the same nature).
Yes, they say it is murder, but the vast majority do not actually act as if it is.
In the same way, those who say economic coercion is slavery do not act as if they were slaves.
An honest reply could be, say, "it's true that, if I use a prostitute, there is no way of knowing whether she is consenting or if she is financially coerced and it is therefore forced, but is the same not true of clothes? How do I know the shirt I'm wearing didn't have slave labor involved in its creation?"
To which one may respond by, for example, pointing out that clothes are general necessary for human life, while having sex is completely optional.
But such acknowledgements (that use of prostitutes without the possibility of rape is impossible, that sex is optional) would betray the sex-positivity line and the rewards that come with sticking to it.
> And swinging back round to prostitution, what about those who are financially coerced into it? Fully informed consent requires that one be both of age and not coerced. Thus someone who is financially coerced is incapable of consenting
"Financial coercion" inferred from material need isn't generally recognized as voiding consent in any other domain where consent is critical (e.g., marriage, contracts in general -- labor included, but not exclusively, etc.) If "financial coercion" were treated as a real form of coercion that voided consent, capitalism -- even in the moderated form seen in modern mixed economies -- would collapse entirely.
I support the Swedish model. The prostitute is not the criminal; the pimp and the john are. It has demonstrably reduced human trafficking and has helped many women and some men get out of prostitution.
That's still leaving women's lives in the hands of criminals. Why not allow a woman to control her own body as an independent contractor? This is how the heavily regulated brothels work in the state of Nevada.
that's (Edit: exactly he opposite) of how it is in several European countries (consuming/possession of some drugs / quantities is legal, it's illegal to sell)
That's opposite what I was suggesting. The drug dealers can legally sell drugs, the users get in trouble for buying drugs. Just like the prostitutes can legally sell sex, but the johns get in trouble for buying sex.
I think it is the opposite of what you were saying. It's illegal for drug dealers to sell drugs (the pimp). It's illegal to grow or make drugs (the trafficker). It's not illegal to consume drugs (as the drug user is the prostitute or the perceived "victim" of the crime).
In this case there is no john. Addiction is a mental illness, so the drug user is the victim just like the prostitute would be.
I believe that you cannot criminalize half of a transaction. Further, you cannot criminalize any necessary step in a chain of commerce that ends in a legal transaction.
If it is okay to use a drug, it is okay to buy it. If it is okay to buy it, it is okay to sell it. If it is okay to sell it, it is okay to produce it. If it is okay to produce it, it is okay to acquire the raw materials and precursors (i.e. grow cannabis, grow mycelium, grow ergot, buy pseudoephedrine).
If there is a possible malicious use or purpose, you can only criminalize that chain as far back as the last link in an innocent use or purpose. If you criminalize methamphetamine, you cannot also criminalize pseudoephedrine, because it is still a decongestant cold remedy, which is an innocent purpose.
In my view, you cannot separate links from the web of commerce by outlawing an intermediate activity and pretend that the orphaned innocent activities are not affected by it.
I think those laws previously mentioned are thus aimed more at influencing policing activity. Left to their own devices, a cop would prefer to arrest a prostitute than 10 johns, and would prefer to arrest a pimp than 10 prostitutes, and would prefer to arrest an organized crime captain than 10 pimps, and would prefer to arrest a kingpin than 10 captains. Interrupting that walk to the root of the crime tree at the prostitute level forces them to fight the crime where it occurs rather than seize the money.
Sure you can. Just say it's not illegal to use drugs but it's illegal to sell them. Easy as that. You're outlawing every activity that happens except the actions of the victim.
Addiction is considered a mental illness by the US government. If we outlaw consumption of drugs by an addict, we're throwing people in jail for having a mental illness. It doesn't matter where they got the drugs from, they're the victim. However, selling drugs is not an addiction. Growing drugs is not an addiction. They're crimes, because you're victimizing someone with a mental illness.
You're not criminalizing any necessary step in a chain of commerce that ends in a legal transaction because in this situation there is no legal transaction that lets you purchase illegal drugs.
The one having to buy drugs is the victim while the ones selling it is the criminal, but the one having to sell sex is the victim while the one buying it is the criminal? As long as we are talking about consensual prostitution, this makes no sense.
The problem is we're comparing a hypothetical situation to a real, different situation in a different country with different laws. In most places in the US, there is no such thing as consensual prostitution. However, if buying sex is illegal and selling women for sex is illegal but being a prostitute is not illegal, then we're effectively saying the woman is the victim of the transaction. There is no way it could be consensual if it's illegal on one side but not the other. The reason it would be legal to sell yourself for sex but not legal to purchase is because the women were often being coerced or otherwise forced into prostitution. These laws automatically assume the woman is the victim and automatically assume the sex is non-consensual even if both parties agree to it. Just like how a minor cannot consent even if they say yes, with these kinds of laws a prostitute cannot consent even if they say yes.
If both buying and selling sex are legal, then it's a different story. But if buying is illegal but selling is legal, the prostitute is the victim. And if a drug dealer is offering something an addict cannot prevent themselves from buying due to their mental illness, the dealer is the criminal and the buyer is the victim.
Bear in mind, the point of not charging the prostitute with a crime is because they don't want to arrest someone who was forced into an illegal transaction, they want to arrest the people who are forcing others to commit crimes. If a carjacker puts a gun to your head and tells you to run a red light, you won't get a ticket. And if you're addicted to heroin, you don't really have a choice if you want to buy heroin or not. But the person who is providing you with that heroin doesn't have to sell it to you. That's why they're the criminal.
>In most places in the US, there is no such thing as consensual prostitution.
I have long since rejected the notion of the law having any say in what is or isn't consensual. If the law says that pi is 3 or that climate change isn't happening, would we give any weight to it? No, and not because the law happens to be wrong in this case, but because any educated person would reject what the law has to say concerning the reality of the situation. (Not to say the law can be ignored if one is looking to stay out of jail, but thankfully online arguments about reality aren't likely to get one jailed.)
>But if buying is illegal but selling is legal, the prostitute is the victim.
You define the victim based on what the law says? Once again, I reject the notion that what the law says has any bearing on reality.
>Bear in mind, the point of not charging the prostitute with a crime is because they don't want to arrest someone who was forced into an illegal transaction, they want to arrest the people who are forcing others to commit crimes.
If every prostitute can be considered forced, then so can every john. A john would only be seeing prostitute because a more socially acceptable hookup is not available, and in such they are forced into it in much the same way that a prostitute is forced into it because a more socially acceptable job is not available (BTW, I'm being sarcastic because I reject that whole argument).
>But the person who is providing you with that heroin doesn't have to sell it to you.
When you are in a gang and are told to go seel some crack, you don't tell the leader no if you favor your health and wellbeing.
In the case of a consenting prostitute, sex is what is being sold. In the case where they aren't consenting, you are dealing with a human trafficker selling (renting) a human. But as long as we are talking about consensual prostitution, sex is the item being sold, not the person.
You are making an important point but doing so in a confusing manner.
The argument was made that prohibition is inherently ineffective.
Some people who make this argument may nonetheless support prohibition in some cases.
In fact, whether prohibition works or not is intrinsically tied to the general moral views of society at large. When over 1/3rd of the U.S. population has tried marijuana - including a former President - it's really no surprise that prohibition of marijuana is ineffective.
Prohibition is effective at controlling deviant behavior.
It's a strange thing. It works solely to punish behaviors that most people wouldn't engage in or don't approve of anyway anyway. Once society's stance changes on those behaviors, the punishment comes to be seen as unjust and the law as unnecessary.
>You are making an important point but doing so in a confusing manner.
I'm going to plead drugs (of the legal/prescribed nature) and sleep deprivation due to a recent illness. Reading back in a few of my post I think I was losing sight of my main point.
>Prohibition is effective at controlling deviant behavior.
Is it? Prohibition on Kinder Eggs seems to have worked because there isn't much of a market for them. But prohibition on prostitution has not worked, even though I don't think the majority would openly support it. Prohibition on things more generally agreed outright wrong doesn't work as long as there is a demand for them. Kinder Eggs have no demand, so prohibition in general worked. But things that have a demand that cannot easily be fulfilled by other goods/services seem unable to effectively be prohibited.
I support the legalization of prostitution. If someone makes a conscious decision about what they would like to do with their own body, and that includes having sex in exchange for money, then that is their prerogative and they should have the opportunity to do so via a well-regulated "system" of sorts.
"Illegal pornography" is too general a term for this type of discussion. Sodomy is still illegal in many places throughout the world, including fourteen states in the US as of April of last year, but is something that can be a very enjoyable experience for everyone involved. If the "illegal" pornography involves individuals who are capable of making a conscious choice about the acts they engage in, then yes, it should be legal. If the "illegal" pornography involves coercion and/or rape of anyone, or animal, involved, then no, it should remain illegal.
>If the "illegal" pornography involves individuals who are capable of making a conscious choice about the acts they engage in, then yes, it should be legal. If the "illegal" pornography involves coercion and/or rape of anyone, or animal, involved, then no, it should remain illegal.
Ignoring for the moment that I can kill and eat an animal for my own pleasure... we aren't focusing on if it should be prohibited, but if prohibition of it would work.
People will say that prohibition of drugs is stupid because prohibition fails. I'm interested in if this argument, not the argument that drugs shouldn't be prohibited for any other reasons, holds up.
Illegal porn, at least of the digital variety, is easier to produce and trivial to copy compared to drugs. If prohibition of drugs is doomed to failure irrelevant of one's stance on their morality, then should not the same be true of illegal porn?
As for what I mean by illegal porn, pick whatever you think should be made illegal for whatever moral reasons you want. If you want to ban midgets because Shiva told you so; it doesn't much matter why because my point is talking about the argument that prohibition inherently fails regardless of the moral judgments upon what is being prohibited.
The two cannot be compared. Illegal porn (child porn, rape, etc.) is illegal because of a lack of consent and potential for assault, psychological scarring, etc. of the victim. Drugs are illegal in an attempt to "protect" consenting adults from themselves and have no victim aside from the users themselves.
Here's the same hypothetical that you're proposing from another angle: "If banning whistleblowing is doomed to failure irrelevant of one's stance on its morality, then should not the same be true of war crimes?"
They can be compared for the purpose of the argument. The argument that 'prohibition doesn't work' does not place any conditions as to what it can be applied to.
>"If banning whistleblowing is doomed to failure irrelevant of one's stance on its morality, then should not the same be true of war crimes?"
If the properties of whistleblowing that dooms to failure the ban on it are also found in war crimes, and if war crimes does not possess properties that are lacking from whistleblowing that would counteract those properties they both share, then banning war crimes is doomed to failure.
Why does banning drugs fail? Because there is a demand that will not go away and thus the potential for money to be made and there are those who are willing to do anything to make that money. Notice that the moral considerations of drugs do not factor into this.
>and have no victim aside from the users themselves.
Maybe for a college student smoking pot this is the case. There are plenty of third party victims to many other drugs, even some of the legal ones (take alcohol which factors into drunk driving injuries and sexual assaults). Also consider pregnant women who give birth to babies that are born addicted to drugs.
It's also a matter of actually asking whether prohibition helps. Does it help prostitutes? Not in the least.
I'm all in favor of prohibiting theft, murder, etc., but drugs are a little ludicrous. It's obviously unenforceable, and a government will bankrupt itself trying.
Prohibiting theft works, but prohibiting the sale of stolen goods has largely failed. An even worse track record is the prohibition of copyright violations. A prohibition on suicide may be an interesting case to look into.
To me, it seems that prohibition has some complex equation to determine if it will or will not fail. This becomes even more complicate when you consider the option to prohibit with only fines, at which point it is nearing becoming a sin tax instead.
I don't think it's fair to compare child porn, which is almost universally considered immoral, to drug use or prostitution, which is a very grey area of morality.
Well, there is also snuff, and then you have gore which is legal and acceptable even though I don't see big differences from stuff involving children, and then you have drawings/cgi that are illegal in many locations but not all, and then you have stuff involving animals, and then you have the underage but almost adult sexting, and then you have things like porn involving ivory or leather (if using an animal is bad, why is using part of its carcass acceptable).
But beyond all that, the morals of the issue change over time and do not factor into an argument of feasibility (even things that are 'almost universally immoral' have a very large market, one large enough that it makes me question the 'almost universal' part of the sentiment).
You are comparing apples to oranges. There is a difference between "prohibition of a substance" and "prohibition of an activity that exploits human beings".
The first is purely voluntary [e.g. both parties desire to engage in the transaction without coercion] while the second is generally due to coercion of some kind. Addiction isn't "coercion" in this sense when you are the one that voluntary took the substance with knowledge of the risks in the first place.
The only truly "illegal" [as in widely agreed upon across many countries] prostitution and pornography is that of children so I assume that is what you were getting at.
I don't think many people here are really in favor of criminalization of any transaction between consenting adults [as long as no coercion is involved].
>You are comparing apples to oranges. There is a difference between "prohibition of a substance" and "prohibition of an activity that exploits human beings".
Is there that big of a difference between prohibition of drugs and prohibition of prostitution?
Also, where does prohibition of a substance produced by an activity that exploits human beings fall?
>Addiction isn't "coercion" in this sense when you are the one that voluntary took the substance with knowledge of the risks in the first place.
I wonder how many of those addicted fully understood the risks? Especially if they first became addicted while underage and thus unable to partake voluntarily.
As to what type of prostitution I'm talking about, I'm including adults because there are many places it is still illegal.
>as long as no coercion is involved
What counts as coercion? Does "If I don't have sex with this John, my children won't eat tonight" count? (Of course, one may also ask the same for other jobs; is "If I don't produce garments for the next 12 hours, my children won't eat tonight," slavery?)
> ...is "If I don't produce garments for the next 12 hours, my children won't eat tonight," slavery?
I think this is often overlooked in definitions of a freedom and liberty; "the freedom to starve" is a pretty low bar for freedom. How can we structure a civilization that we're free from coercive choices like "take the only available, shitty, demeaning job left, or starve to death"?
Nearly every incorporation law allows the corporation to have a specific purpose, rather than "any lawful activity". Incorporate for the purpose of providing food rations sufficient to prevent all malnutrition diseases to all shareholders. Then trade shares for labor which supports the food production.
If your company grows large enough, the people most worried about starvation can literally work for food, using industrial capital rather than subsistence tools.
That's probably as close as one person can get to "structuring civilization" without spending at least $10M on politics, lobbying, and capital investment.
Yes, but its a complete misrepresentation of what I'm talking about and a disingenuous argument.
Providing for the welfare of people is a separate topic that isn't "solved" by banning prostitution. It is solved by rational welfare policies that guarantee a basic level of subsistence that no one is forced to make that decision in the first place.
Otherwise, once again, you can replace "prostitution" with "any job people don't like".
> Also, where does prohibition of a substance produced by an activity that exploits human beings fall?
It isn't inherent to the substance that people were exploited. Labor laws cover that. You are using arguments that equally apply to sweatshops. No one goes around arguing we have to prohibit shoes because of sweat shops.
> I wonder how many of those addicted fully understood the risks?
If they are an adult and didn't understand the risks beforehand, that is on them. For the most part, you can't really protect adults from their own choices. It isn't practical [or frankly] possible. They just become criminals as prohibition has shown. Criminals who only break the law in regards to themselves are going to do it anyway. You can't magically protect people from risk when its clear people will do it regardless of the legality.
Its commonly understood addictive substances are risky. We aren't talking about some guy in China sneaking a harmful substance into baby formula.
> Of course, one may also ask the same for other jobs; is "If I don't produce garments for the next 12 hours, my children won't eat tonight," slavery?
That is kind of my point. Situations like you describe are solved best by other solutions. [e.g. Welfare so people aren't that level of desperate]
>No one goes around arguing we have to prohibit shoes because of sweat shops.
But shoes from sweatshops, I know many who say we should prohibit those.
>If they are an adult and didn't understand the risks beforehand, that is on them.
What does turn 18 (or what ever age you set adulthood to) magically remove the need of informed consent?
>Its commonly understood addictive substances are risky.
At least in the US, growing up the risks of drugs were vastly blown out of proportion (as was the risks of premarital sex). If those who told you that K was dangerous cried wolf on A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, why would you believe them about K?
> But shoes from sweatshops, I know many who say we should prohibit those.
But once again, you are outlawing the labor practices of sweatshops. It is not inherent to a substance prohibition and is a different class of law.
Once a good is produced, the harm to the labor is already done. Banning things "after the fact" is pointless. By the time you've identified a "sweat shop" to "ban the shoes" you can already take appropriate actions against the fact it is a sweat shop, y'know?
You just keep trying to somehow link problems that are already solved in other ways that are as least as effective [if not more so] with the good itself. That isn't how it works. You aren't magically going to have the power to identify "Shoe X" as from a sweatshop without also recognizing the fact that "Shoe X" was produced by "Group Y" which is a sweatshop.
You punish the sweatshop, not the person in possession of a given good.
> What does turn 18 (or what ever age you set adulthood to) magically remove the need of informed consent?
Informed consent is the adorable assumption that information is always going to be equal. It isn't. We hold people to legal contracts they failed to consult a lawyer on all the time. How is that any different?
You are an adult. You have to take responsibility and do your own research and/or decide which sources of information you trust.
You cannot somehow magically force adults to be responsible members of the population. You can only say "Hey, we aren't going to fuck you over and we will provide tons of free research about whether or not X is good or bad for you via institutions like the NIH and CDC."
> At least in the US, growing up the risks of drugs were vastly blown out of proportion (as was the risks of premarital sex). If those who told you that K was dangerous cried wolf on A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, why would you believe them about K?
Once again, how is that different than literally any other behavior that contains risk? You are aware the same could be applied to a wide array of medication you are prescribed, the tobacco people still smoke, etc?
There isn't some magical solution to the fact human beings have agendas. You can only write laws requiring research into these things, to make the information publicly available for free, and so forth. You can't somehow outlaw personal agendas that cause certain groups of people to behave irrationally in a democratic system.
-------
Look, if you have an actual solution to the fact human beings have agendas [and can express those agendas via voting for people that will cater to their desire for an overblown reaction to Moral Risk X], by all means provide it. However, literally no human being of significant intellectual prowess has ever succeeded in the endeavor in the real world. This should tell you that you are either the founder of a new political movement that will solve a fundamental problem with democracy....or that you are simply wrong.
You have to let people think for themselves and have faith they realize they need to learn things on their own.
None of the problems you've stated with my position can actually be "solved" in a reasonable manner because the freedom for adults to make stupid choices [due to ignorance or otherwise] is a fundamental right they have [even if you think they shouldn't have it].
>Once a good is produced, the harm to the labor is already done. Banning things "after the fact" is pointless. By the time you've identified a "sweat shop" to "ban the shoes" you can already take appropriate actions against the fact it is a sweat shop, y'know?
Sometimes you only have jurisdiction over the point of sales.
>You punish the sweatshop, not the person in possession of a given good.
If you cannot punish the sweatshop because they are not under your jurisdiction, then the only thing you can do to discourage profit from flowing to the sweatshop is to punish those who benefit from it's product.
>We hold people to legal contracts they failed to consult a lawyer on all the time.
Considering many are too poor to afford a lawyer... I don't see it as a major difference. I actually see the contract law in much of the modern day world as allowing for the exploitation of the lower class and less informed.
>You are an adult. You have to take responsibility and do your own research and/or decide which sources of information you trust.
Once again, why can't we just say 'you are a person, you have the...'? What is magical about being an adult that suddenly makes taking advantage of someones lack of resources and information acceptable (if not admirable)?
>None of the problems you've stated with my position can actually be "solved" in a reasonable manner because the freedom for adults to make stupid choices [due to ignorance or otherwise] is a fundamental right they have [even if you think they shouldn't have it].
What if I think that freedom should happen at 13 instead of 18? Or 23 instead of 18? Or when you can past this comprehensive test instead of 18?
> If you cannot punish the sweatshop because they are not under your jurisdiction, then the only thing you can do to discourage profit from flowing to the sweatshop is to punish those who benefit from it's product.
We are talking about domestic law. Once again, you go from "apples" to "oranges".
The fact you can't stay in the context of domestic law causes me to say f it, honestly.
This whole thread has simply consisted of you talking in circles in an attempt to obfuscate the topic at hand. Instead of refuting points with a counterpoint of your own, you modify the premise of the question and answer that instead.
What is the argument you are attempting to make? Let's start there and see where we can go, yes?
>This whole thread has simply consisted of you talking in circles in an attempt to obfuscate the topic at hand. Instead of refuting points with a counterpoint of your own, you modify the premise of the question and answer that instead.
Except it doesn't, so stop making statements to try to sideline the actual argument.
>What is the argument you are attempting to make?
That people who say they do not support prohibition because it doesn't work are being dishonest about their reasoning because in reality they do support prohibition of some materials/goods/services/items/ect. even when such prohibition doesn't work.
My second and lesser point is that people determine their support of prohibiting something based on both an effectiveness and their subjective moral feelings about the subject being prohibited.
You are aware I reached the same opinion as him and stopped talking to you because you kept reaching for arguments outside the context of domestic prohibition, right?
As far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what you are doing which is why I dropped this. The only difference is, I picked a different way to say it.
>You are aware I reached the same opinion as him and stopped talking to you because you kept reaching for arguments outside the context of domestic prohibition, right?
I actually didn't reply to your other comment because you basically said your arguments fail as soon as goods start crossing borders. Considering that for almost everything having been discussed (goods made by slaves, goods made by abusing non-consenting individuals, and most definitely drugs) involves crossing borders. The original article is even about a substance that is crossing legal borders.
>As far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what you are doing which is why I dropped this. The only difference is, I picked a different way to say it.
It is pretty clear your arguments fail as soon as goods crossing borders were taken into account. As such, your arguments have no place in discussing prohibition in reality except for services that don't cross borders at all.
It's interesting to look at murder rate over time: https://madeinamericathebook.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/hom.... It was already extremely high at the turn of the century and only went up slightly during prohibition. And after the trough in 1960, it started rapidly rising before the drug war got going up in the 1970's.
Bad parts of history repeating means that people are not paying attention to what happened before. The whole situation could have been avoided if people had taken the time to look back.
I hope the people will look back to the way the tobacco industry has killed thousands by ruthlessly effective marketing, intentionally making their product more addictive, spreading misinformation and lobbying against laws that were in the interest of public health. Can you think of any particular reason why "Big Marijuana" will behave better?
When will we legalize the hard drugs? Treating drug users is better than criminalizing them. I always compare drugs being illegal to the alcohol ban in the 1930s and the mafia like Alcopone that rose during that time. Legalizing all drugs is the way forward. Drug money is corrupting police and financing weapons for terror organizations.
> Treating drug users is better than criminalizing them.
Not having them become drug users in the first place would be even better. Let's not forget that a lot of drugs really are seriously harmful
Criminalizing drug use is fucking stupid, sure, but I also really don't want to have big companies spend big advertising budgets on making people addicts.
And a lot of the ones that hurt lots of people now, predominantly harm people due to effects of the criminalisation. Even heroin is a quite safe drug (comparable to other opioids, which does not in any way make it harmless, but also not nearly as nasty as it's often portrayed) - to the extent that it's prescribed for post-op pain in .e.g the UK (under the name diamorphine).
It becomes the horrible nasty mess that people overdose on when you incentivise criminals to cut it with anything from other drugs to brick dust and sell it at all kinds of unpredictable doses because their customers have no recourse.
Give people predictable doses of clean heroin, and it's not much different than having people stay on prescription drugs like Vicodin. In fact, one of the most common gateways to heroin abuse is a dependency on prescription drugs like Vicodin - once the prescriptions are terminated people often turns to the black market due to dependencies, and gradually get nudged over to heroin because it is far cheaper.
I'm not saying we should have ads for heroin or let grocery stores sell it, but the criminalisation even of these drugs do massive amount of harm and we owe it to the people harmed to actually seriously consider whether the criminalisation is even moral.
Your concern of advertising budgets is easily prevented by outlawing advertising. Whenever I visit the US, I'm shocked at the amount of drug advertising on TV for example, as in Europe both drugs (prescription or otherwise) and alcohol advertising is strictly regulated or outright banned in a range of countries.
Likewise many European countries regulate sale of e.g. liquor heavily, including with government sales monopolies with stricter sales policies in a few countries.
Interestingly, opiate replacement therapy where heroin is the drug they choose to get you off heroin has a higher success rate than any other choice. I was lucky, Suboxone worked wonders for me, despite 6 years of addiction. I'm now fully recovered (and no long-lasting effects, such a curious side considering how horrendously addictive it was for myself; most other drugs that are as addictive cause pretty bad physical side effects from use alone) three years later and have been a productive member of society for those three years. All thanks to the government treating heroin addicts pretty well, as long as it's not the police whom are the first to find out about your problem anyway.
If the government saved a ton of money by not trying to fight the "War on Drugs" and also collected a lot of tax revenue on softer drugs like marijuana they'd have a lot more to put into education, treatment and prevention.
Even if the government would go part-way, there'd be an enormous impact. Let's say that we legalized marijuana...
The last figure that I read was that 85% of the DEA's budget was spent fighting marijuana.
If it were legalized, overnight, that would mean that the amount of money available to go after cocaine, heroin, crystal meth and prescription opiate trafficking would be increased by about 566%.
If you took only 10% of the budget and put it toward treatment and harm reduction, I believe that the problems associated with abuse would plummet. Portugal saw something like 50% decline when they decriminalized.
That's where we're heading in Uruguay with alcohol, tobacco and marijuana (all three are legal but advertising is restricted or forbidden for tobacco and marijuana, with alcohol to come soon).
I don't know how effective or practical banning advertising would be. I'm reminded of the song CoCo by O.T. Genasis [0] that proclaims the rappers love for cocaine.
That being said, drugs, including more dangerous drugs, are already very much part of our culture and glorified everywhere from music to movies. De-criminalizing them is the obvious course of path for harm-reduction and diminishing the influence of organized crime.
Interestingly if you really want to look into that song and the culture that created it, it is extremely anti cocaine use. It's all about selling and profiting from cocaine.
Done? France also ban advertisement on alcohol and cigarettes but the number of smokers isn't decreasing..
But I agree, drug use should be legalized but of course advertising for them (ANY kind of advertising) should be forbidden: note that this is problematic as many movie could be considered as a kind of advertising for alcohol, cigarettes, etc.
Add prohibiting taxes. With the added taxes, direct a large portion to projects which is intended to prevent new users and educate the population.
Ban the use in public areas. Make it social unacceptable behavior and shunned during day light.
Create regulations and complex bureaucracy for those who want to sell the product. Create state controlled monopolies if possible, which then can advertise against purchases.
For tobacco, you can have warning labels that covers most or the whole package.
Agreed that this should be the solution. Let's not repeat another century of tobacco deaths. Yet here we are with companies advertising their their food contains marijuana or that smoking marijuana is "cool" (sound familiar?).
I'm all for banning ads for drugs (alcohol is a drug) and I support plain packaging for cigs (and other drugs) but let's not compare tobacco to weed as 1:1's. Marijuana appears to have REAL medical uses unlike tobacco. I know, I know there was a time where "doctors" said tobacco was fine for you or even good for you [0] but I don't feel like it's a fair comparison to what doctors are saying today about weed. I'd like to think we've gotten better as a planet about filtering out quack-claims about things like this. No doubt there are people claiming weed to be the end-all-be-all, cure-all drug and I agree those people are crazy or seriously misinformed but I do believe there are proven, legitimate uses of marijuana in regards to medicine and the medical profession.
>> I also really don't want to have big companies spend big advertising budgets on making people addicts.
I don't want that either, but what I would really like is if we could find a way to encourage our massive pharmacological sector, in the private and public spheres, to research and produce less harmful recreational drugs.
The problem we'd have if we just de-regulated to encourage this is that there would be a market incentive to produce things that are more addictive.
Like they do now with prescription drugs of course. Seems like the solution would be to ban marketing of certain products to end consumers rather than ban the products themselves.
This meme needs to die. If someone says "the prison corporations are keeping drugs illegal" it just means they don't know what they are talking about. The Unions have much more power but it is not even them keeping drugs illegal, although they don't mind.
Absolutely. Hard drugs are illegal in nearly every country, most of which don't have private prisons. Hard drugs are illegal because most people think they should be. The blame (or credit) lies with the majority.
Many of the countries were coerced into banning drugs with international treaties that were supported heavily by the United States. Drugs have been illegal for much less of civilized history than they've been legal. Also there is the problem of misinformation that was actively spread by the most powerful entities in the world, nation states. I think its very wrong to blame the majority when the average citizen has no control over international drug treaties from 40-50 years ago.
I agree. Frankly, I think the majority of the world seems to want drugs, with a couple of exceptions here and there depending on the country in question, banned. Why this is, I'm unsure in some case, and very clear in others. The problem I find is treating all drugs the same: they're quite obviously all different, so they should be treated different, but then we lose the easy catch-phrases of "Ban drugs!" or "Legalise drugs!". A shame, really.
I don't agree with your assessment that the majority of the world wants drugs banned. Perhaps a majority of the governments and the powerful interests in these countries but the widespread use of drugs among all peoples everywhere shows that the majority of the world wants drugs, and not to have them banned.
Most people who use alcohol are not addicted. In the same way, most people who use other drugs, like methamphetamine and cocaine, are not addicted and do not need or want "treatment".
Treating users has a cost, and while there already are problems with healthcare, I don't know if it's possible to spend money to treat users. taxpayers would moan.
A more viable solution would be to license hard drugs to pharmacists, and notify health department and non-profits so that they can help users.
I agree that it's an error to criminalize them, but you should also discourage people to use hard drugs like heroin and meth. Putting a frame around the use of drugs is a good idea, but it's also important for public health to not send a mixed message.
Obsoleting the dealer is one thing, but don't forget the users.
"[In 2012] the annual average taxpayer cost in these states was $31,286 per inmate."
If you start treating people you need less law enforcement and you get less inmates. And then you haven't even considered the less obvious damage that drug related convictions cause, like not being able to find a job and relying on welfare. Children of convicted drug abusers growing up in a bad environment and being more vulnerable to addiction and crime.
Most arguments against decriminalization are extremely short sighted, just look at the positive effect it's having in Portugal. Drug use might not be severely affected, but the surrounding factors are slowly improving:
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-...
Daily maintenance doses of heroin for a typical addict costs less than $20 (we know, because medical grade heroin is in use in a number of countries for post-op pain). Compare that to the cost of policing, or incarcerating these users, and health care costs that are massively exacerbated by impurities and unknown dose strengths, and offering free prescriptions for pure versions of many drugs would likely save us massive amounts of money.
Especially when indirect crimes (e.g. robberies to finance drug habits) are taken into account, as well as reduced tax revenues (from drug addicts that are unable to function in work places due to the current system).
Getting people to stop using would be preferable, but it is not realistic to get most people to even start to deal with until they're not hounded by police and spending most of their time struggling to scrounge up the money for their next hit. I'd be willing to bet that even in purely economic terms, handing free drugs to most drug addicts in clean forms and predictable doses would likely have a massive ROI for society even in purely economic terms because of the reduced damage - both to users health and due to crime - and increased tax revenue from actually getting many of these addicts back to relatively normal lives (even most heroin addicts can function relatively normally when they don't have to worry about where their next hit is going to come from).
In human terms, the suffering that is directly caused by criminalisation of many of these drugs today is downright disgusting - we'd be hard pressed to come up with anything worse (unless we allow unregulated marketing and sales to children or something).
Don't we already license hard drugs to pharmacist? Most hard drugs are available via prescription. Heroin is diamorphine, methamphetamine is Desoxyn, etc. Other prescription drugs are even more dangerous.
The problem isn't that these substances aren't available. It's more of a problem of who they're available to. If you're wealthy and informed, you can probably shop doctors or get prescribed a strong pain killer and even have insurance to pay for it. The less fortunate have to risk their lives to get the same kick with an inferior and less controlled product.
We are already paying both directly and indirectly with drug enforcement costs, immigration, etc. If Mexico, for example, becomes a less violent country, and the economy grows, fewer people will cross the border. In fact, more Americans would retire in Central America if some of those counties stabilized.
I think the precedent and willingness to spend huge amounts of money to treat self inflicted problems is pretty well established. Lung cancer, liver damage, sleep apnea, auto accidents, etc.
Not to mention one of the main points of approaching this whole situation differently is that treating users and decimalization may actually save money overall.
There's enough resistance to legalizing Marijuana. Let's see how that goes, first.
Many ethical issues have to be solved first. Several hard drugs, for example heroin, methamphetamines and crack, are almost impossible to use without "abuse". So you have companies selling this stuff to people so they can harm themselves. It will be tough to make these sales a better ethical choice than banning these drugs.
This shouldn't come as a surprise. It's pure logic. The most efficient way to fight crime is to not create the criminals in the first place. Instead, you control a legal trade with legal means. Heck, you can even raise taxes on it, instead of sinking money into hopeless “law enforcement”.
The only 'problem' now are the 'drug' dealers on so many corners of downtown Lisbon who sell fake drugs to tourists. They come up in your face and try to sell to you a few times per day and it's really annoying. Now, I spot them from far away and already make the no signal with my index finger w/o looking at them, but this doesn't always work. Once I was way in the back of a restaurant but with a clear view of the front door/street. One such dealer stopped at the entrance and pointed to his nose (to mimick snorting) until I shook my head so he'd go away. Since they sell fake drugs (basically to tourists but also they try with locals), the police can't do anything.
A minor problem, all in all, considering what has changed here regarding decriminalization, but thought I'd share.
This is a problem with the decriminalisation route - production and distribution are still in the black market.
I'm not saying that full legalisation of anything and everything would necessarily be better, but...
The portuguese experiment has been a huge success in terms of harm reduction, but probably less so in terms of discouraging or removing criminal activity.
A variation on this theme occurs in most major cities I've visited though, whether it's fake designer sunglasses, candy, demo CDs, or bootleg DVDs. I suspect this has less to do with decriminalization and more to do with earning some quick cash.
If you legalize use in the US but keep production and distribution illegal, while it would probably help drug abusers get treatment, wouldn't this only feed more money to the cartels?
I highly recommend this flick. It is exceptionally well made in artistic as well as subject-specific regards.
Also watch-worthy are "How to Make Money Selling Drugs" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276962/) which features a similar approach to the subject and "Narco Cultura" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2504022/) if you are interested in how this drug-crap even detrimentally influences what's left of Mexican culture.
People have been saying this for years, with the securistas basically avoiding an answer. Now there's data. Will they still avoid having a conversation?
Because on the metalevel it's important for people to understand that these issues can be solved efficiently with informed debate, rather than with screeching and shouting and "think of the children" and knockless raids.
People need to know that results-focused thinking is important in the first place.
Maybe you are overestimating how many people make this effort. For the most part, when you say "solved" most people will take that to mean "my side won" and when your side is for the criminalization of drugs a priori then if screeching and shouting and thinking about kids are what is necessary to get the job done, then that's what will happen. Most people don't do this on purpose, rather the thought never occurs to them to examine why they support a thing, i.e. what their goals are, and whether the measures they endorse to further these alleged goals actually do anything to accomplish them.
Why do people support criminalization of drugs? Do they just think that drugs are really bad and that people shouldn't use them no matter what? Putting aside for a moment whether this belief is justified, does the current regime even manage to reduce drug use? Maybe they just think that drug users are bad people and need to be punished, but I wonder what such people think of enriching drug cartels, which the policies they support tend to do. Then there is the harm reduction cohort, which is the one that I think has finally come around to the fact that criminalization isn't accomplishing that goal, and is why we are starting to see legalization after the destruction of millions of lives.
Today, 82 years after the repeal, there are ca. 'dry' counties in the US. In some cases I can understand the intention (a remote village in Alaska for instance, where the villagers would drink themselves to death because there's nothing else to do). In most cases however it's just shortsighted backwardness. Studies have shown that dry counties have a significantly higher rate of alcohol related traffic deaths than wet counties. The most likely explanation is not that people in dry counties drink more, but that they have to travel a larger distance for their alcohol, thus increasing the chance of a DUI accident.
> Studies have shown that dry counties have a significantly higher rate of alcohol related traffic deaths than wet counties.
Yes, but correlation does not imply causation, which might be the other way round: counties have decided to be dry because they have recognized they have alcohol problems.
(You can have the same debate about gun control, etc.)
But the causation may also be that being "dry" actually incites people to use alcohol. I'm in the North of Europe, a country where availability of alcohol is restricted (strong liquor only in state monopoly stores, beer sold only at specific hours and not to minors and not to those already under influence), and the drinking culture is traditionally binge-drinking. People take ferry trips to buy loads of cheap alcohol from the neighbours. They buy enough to last two months, and then they drink it in two weeks.
Legalization may provide a net health benefit for Mexican gang members. Whether legalization will provide a net health benefit for American citizens is still a point of contention.
The war of drugs has been done badly. Of course it's ridiculous that people's homes get raided because they have some pot. That doesn't mean legislation needs to jump to the other end of the spectrum. You can forbid trade of cannabis and at the same time NOT put users in jail.
Wait - what are the health effects of prison? I remember reading somewhere that prisoners are some of the fittest people around, and you shouldn't pick a fight with one...
A lot of health dis-benefits are a result of criminalisation.
Some people who call for decriminalisation are calling for drug use to be treated as the health problem that it is.
With criminalisation we see drives to stronger forms of the drug (EG: bootleggers were mostly not selling beer, but spirits). Decriminalisation and legalisation would allow people to grow and actively market weaker forms of the drug.
Criminalisation pushes people towards unhealthier forms of drug taking because it's legally tricky to provide harm reduction information or harm reduction devices. Most people smoke cannabis; and most people mix it with tobacco. That's a pretty unhealthy way to take it. Legally being allowed to sell vaporisers would help.
>> Whether legalization will provide a net health benefit for American citizens is still a point of contention.
Might end up with a few less killed violently.
Might end up with more money to spend on social programs instead of militarised police.
Might end up with much more tax from economic activity brought out of the black market.
Might end up with less contaminated produce.
All of these could end up being better for the health of American citizens.
And even if not you're bringing your problems in-house rather than shipping them off to poorer places and causing suffering there.
If you want to empower the thugs and the terrorists and the human traffickers, make as many things illegal as you can.
Like many, many things, this should be handled locally. People should be able to the drugs they want as long a neighborhood or city wishes to profit from it and deal with the costs. And others should be able to live without drug use in their neighborhoods.
There are many organizations working to end the failed policy of prohibition. I believe one of the most effective is the Drug Policy Alliance. DPA is a national advocacy leader of drug law reform that is grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights. If anyone know of a more effective organization please share it.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/
I wonder if the the Mexican Cartel's have a good Lobby here in the United States that is pushing for the re-focus on the criminalization of Marijuana. How ironic would that be.
After reading the article, the title makes me question correlation/causation.
"A key problem is that cartels have diversified to a portfolio of other crimes, from sex trafficking to stealing crude oil from Mexican pipelines. They also make billions smuggling hard drugs. Seizures of both heroin and crystal meth on the U.S.-Mexico border have gone up as those of marijuana have sunk..."
EDIT:
The title sounds like it is impacting overall drug traffic, as opposed to simply a shift in the type of traffic.
The key problem is that cartels need money, and have moved on to what is more profitable to them, and more violent:
crimes affecting the general population:
This makes sense if you think about it from the cartel's standpoint, but it won't change much in the big picture. All the cartel's are doing is switching products, producing more cocaine, more meth, heroin, and ecstasy. All of which are vastly more popular and generate tons more revenue in the US than marijuana anyways.
Most of the articles I've read, talk about how marijuana is effectively a third or fourth tier product to them. Sure they bring a lot of it in, but it's not a huge money maker like other drugs are. This isn't hardly going to put a dent in their operations. When you have an organization generating BILLIONS of dollars, a few million here or there isn't going to affect them very much.
How did you come to the conclusion that those drugs are more popular than marijuana in the US? I've never met anyone who did coke, meth, heroin, or ecstasy and didn't also smoke weed.
What I meant was the numbers for these drugs seems to be increasing while those numbers for marijuana seem to be staying steady or increasing slightly. There have always been high numbers of marijuana users, but in the last 5 years, usage for the other drugs is increasing, giving the cartels an easy way to pivot to those drugs to recover their losses from legalization here. Sorry if the wording was misleading.
"Across the U.S., heroin abuse among first-time users has increased by nearly 60 percent in the last decade, from about 90,000 to 156,000 new users a year, according to the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)."
"Emergency room visits related to MDMA -- known as Ecstasy in pill form and Molly in the newer powder form -- increased 128 percent between 2005 and 2011 among people younger than 21. Visits rose from about roughly 4,500 to more than 10,000 during that time, according to a report released Tuesday by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration."
"A report by the National Drug Intelligence Center released last August, “National Drug Threat Assessment 2011,” stated methamphetamine use was increasing, especially among the young. The report attributed the rise to Mexican drug cartels that control smuggling routes across the Southwestern border, which can produce, transport and distribute the drug. "
I'm surprised that even a small amount of legalization is having such an effect on the drug trade, and I've always cited this as a reason to legalize. Seizures being down a third in mexico and a fifth in the U.S. should just be hard evidence that the way to win the war on drugs is to kill the pipeline.
More sweeping measures, including federal decriminalization and the passage of recreational use in the American Southwest, would probably sink the black market altogether. Let's see if republicans get the message or if they'll continue to cover their ears and eyes.
A lot of the reason is due in part to having new suppliers, a lot of people in non-legalized states are now getting weed from Colorado/Oregon as opposed to Mexico. If you casually browse /r/darknetmarkets and/or /r/worldnews you'll see that the USPS are starting to scrutinize outbound packages from weed legal states for more heavily as of recent.
Somewhat off topic: A lot of the people commenting in this thread seem like they have experience with illegal drugs. Please be careful with what you publish on the public Internet; you never know what the DEA is up to.
An HN post could lead them to your front door, and then parallel construction could cover the trail.
Please, stop with the paranoia. The majority of US middle-aged and young adults have experience with illicit drugs. Illicit drug use is extremely common in the US.
Parallel construction is only needed if they want to conceal how they originally discovered the crime (or potential crime). If someone is walking down the street, or in a public forum like this, discussing drug use and a law enforcement officer hears it, they may have cause to investigate the person (depending on what's been said). Really, discussing anything illegal in a public (or semi-public) forum is not a good idea. When I was in high school this is what caused about 10% of my graduating class to get arrested in the span of a few weeks. One kid talked a bit too loudly in a hallway and a cop heard, which lead to him rolling on someone who rolled on someone and so on.
Legalization has been always proved to be effective as coutermove to illegal traffic and, on the other hand, it's a great money source for the state applying taxes. Now, the problem now is that regulations must be clear and the price well balanced to avoid the black-market price war.
I grew up around a lot of friendly country weed growers, but I cannot believe how many of my old friends are in the business now. California Weed Rush.
>The Organization of American States estimated that the revenue for cocaine sales in the U.S. was $34 billion in 2013. The Office of National Drug Control Policy estimates that $100 billion worth of illegal drugs were sold in the U.S. in 2013
$34b refers to cocaine; $100b refers to everything.
It's not an unreasonable guess.
The numbers are hard to get right. Here's something about different statistical methods that end up with very different numbers (about 650,000 people who used heroin in a year vs about 1.5 million people; about 60,000 people who use heroin nearly daily vs neary a million people who used heroin nearly daily.)
You'd sort of expect the total value of illegal drugs sold in the US to be greater than the total value of cocaine sold in the US, since there are other illegal drugs besides cocaine.
Lets look back in history to see how well prohibition has worked in the past.
The exact same result happened back in the 1920's with the prohibition of alcohol. The 1920's prohibition resulted in nothing more than the rise of the Mafia.
Back in the 1920's there was similar waste of government money fighting alcohol, only to see the rise in the power of the Mafia.
Move forward to today's 'war on drugs' and once again government is wasting massive amounts of public money trying fighting a loosing war.
The harder the fight the richer the drug kings become.
But now the states decide to go softer on a 'war on what ever' and guess what, the 'drug kings' once again start to loose money.
Nothing more than history repeating :(