Why do governments prohibit drugs?

[Pappa]

Why do governments prohibit drugs (but not alcohol and tobacco)?

I was reading this excellent article and it reminded me I've never really been convinced of the reasons governments ban drugs.

• Is it that they genuinely think drugs are more dangerous than other accepted risks, so wish to only protect us?
• Is it because they believe that doing drugs is unnatural?
• Is it linked to long-dead religiosity? - Hedonism is sinful, therefore all drugs are bad?
• Is it purely a form of social control, perhaps one of many unnecessary laws to keep us fully in our place?
• Is it because they fear speaking out against prohibition... and fear losing their comfy political life as a result?
• Is it because of blinkered thinking? They were already on the treadmill of prohibition when they entered politics. We've had prohibition for as long as anyone can remember and they're just constantly trying to plug leaks. Basically, is it that they can't see the wood for the trees?
• Is it because of the shockingly poor scientific literacy among politicians and the public in general?
• Is it because drugs are actually bad for you, but... insert your reason here why alcohol and tobacco are excluded?

OK... it's probably many/all of those reasons and more.

Thoughts?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You can't tax a plant that anyone can grow.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You can't tax a plant that anyone can grow.

The US government allows for one gallon of home-brewed whiskey to be made for each adult in the household per month. That's enough for two-three highballs each month. If they limited the amount of land that you could have under cultivation they'd have the same effect for weed.

Paix, amour, et dope!

[Pappa]

You can't tax a plant that anyone can grow.

The US government allows for one gallon of home-brewed whiskey to be made for each adult in the household per month. That's enough for two-three highballs each month. If they limited the amount of land that you could have under cultivation they'd have the same effect for weed.

Paix, amour, et dope!

Besides, the vast majority of cannabis smokers would rather buy it than grow their own, and it's not exactly cheap to grow due to the cost of lights and hydro equipment, etc.

Almost none of the other drugs that are prohibited can be easily produced at home.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You can't tax a plant that anyone can grow.

The US government allows for one gallon of home-brewed whiskey to be made for each adult in the household per month. That's enough for two-three highballs each month. If they limited the amount of land that you could have under cultivation they'd have the same effect for weed.

Paix, amour, et dope!

Besides, the vast majority of cannabis smokers would rather buy it than grow their own, and it's not exactly cheap to grow due to the cost of lights and hydro equipment, etc.

Almost none of the other drugs that are prohibited can be easily produced at home.

I know guys around here that grow their own, back in the woods. They are smart enough to plant individual plants in various locations, so there's nothing to spot from the air. They've also developed varieties that grow well in shade, so they can plant under trees. Not a way to do it on an industrial basis, but they get enough to get them through the winter.

a0ib6r.jpg (38.58 KiB) Viewed 4193 times

[sandinista]

Is it that they genuinely think drugs are more dangerous than other accepted risks, so wish to only protect us?

No, not a chance, even if it were the case (which it clearly is not) what right does the government have to protect us from ourselves.

Is it because they believe that doing drugs is unnatural?

Not sure what that even means...wearing clothes could be considered unnatural. Most of what humans do could be considered unnatural.

Is it linked to long-dead religiosity? - Hedonism is sinful, therefore all drugs are bad?

I would say, partially. Although, hard to argue that when alcohol is legal.

Is it purely a form of social control, perhaps one of many unnecessary laws to keep us fully in our place?

Definitely at the top of the list. Not only to "keep us in our place" but to have an excuse to arrest and imprison thousands of, mostly poor people. The "war on drugs" is a make work project and an economic boom for prisons, military, police forces, lawyers etc. This also takes into account US presence in Latin America and other countries under the guise of a "war on drugs".

Is it because they fear speaking out against prohibition... and fear losing their comfy political life as a result?

Yes and yes...one of the biggest problems (of many) with "liberal democracies" is the unwillingness to change policies for fear of losing votes.

Is it because of blinkered thinking? They were already on the treadmill of prohibition when they entered politics. We've had prohibition for as long as anyone can remember and they're just constantly trying to plug leaks. Basically, is it that they can't see the wood for the trees?

Yes, fear of change.

Is it because of the shockingly poor scientific literacy among politicians and the public in general?

Yes, but a minor reason imo. I think, even with poor scientific literacy, most people, politicians included, know that legalization is the "correct" move, but also know it is nearly impossible because of the mass industry devoted to "fighting drugs". This is very much in line with the military industrial complex. NOT being at war, or NOT criminalizing drugs and drug users would mean the loss of millions of jobs.

Is it because drugs are actually bad for you, but... insert your reason here why alcohol and tobacco are excluded?

No...this has very little to do with prohibition. Little to nothing.

Criminalizing drugs is one of the biggest crimes against individual freedom ever. It is hard to believe a country (the US) which uses the term "freedom" like a mantra is, in fact, denying people the right to the most basic of freedoms, the right to do with ones consciousness what one wants. No country will ever be free as long as drugs are illegal.

[epepke]

Historically, the objection to marijuana was a racist campaign against Black people and Mexicans.

That just leads to the question about why governments should object to Black people and Mexicans. Apart from the racism of the people involved, it's probably economic.

[HomerJay]

Historically, the objection to marijuana was a racist campaign against Black people and Mexicans.

In europe, the story goes it was the egyptians who proposed it.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

You can't tax a plant that anyone can grow.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the Dutch tax dope? Could be wrong there...



Banning drugs in society is a bad thing, imo - but probably better than one where they were enforced.

Edit: Just reminded myself of a film but can't remember the name of it...

[Tero]

It's just part of the vast conspiracy run by repub...I mean hypocrites.

[JOZeldenrust]

You can't tax a plant that anyone can grow.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the Dutch tax dope? Could be wrong there...



Banning drugs in society is a bad thing, imo - but probably better than one where they were enforced.

Edit: Just reminded myself of a film but can't remember the name of it...

No, we don't. Marijuana isn't legal in The Netherlands, but the ban on marijuana isn't enforced as long as dealers and users abide by a strict set of rules. Actually legalizing marijuana would make it possible to tax its sales, but in the current situation, dealers just pay income tax. They don't pay VAT or excises like on alcohol and tobacco.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

You can't tax a plant that anyone can grow.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the Dutch tax dope? Could be wrong there...



Banning drugs in society is a bad thing, imo - but probably better than one where they were enforced.

Edit: Just reminded myself of a film but can't remember the name of it...

No, we don't. Marijuana isn't legal in The Netherlands, but the ban on marijuana isn't enforced as long as dealers and users abide by a strict set of rules. Actually legalizing marijuana would make it possible to tax its sales, but in the current situation, dealers just pay income tax. They don't pay VAT or excises like on alcohol and tobacco.

Ah...I thought I heard somewhere that coffee shops paid tax on it. - Must've got a wire crossed.

[Gonzo]

The biggest excuse used against prohibiton is the 'Gateway Drug' thesis which has been disproven in scientific studies yet has been ignored by the government in favor of conservatism as most all truth about recreational drug use has been ignored since prohibition in order to fool and mislead. Otherwise, yes, it is the combination of contributing factors you've listed.

For further reading a persuasive argument in favor for legalization:

ENDING THE WAR ON DRUGS
LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA

Processing, distributing, transporting, selling, and possession of marijuana is punishable by law in The United States of America, the country responsible for almost half of the world's aproximated 200 million cannabis consumers. According to the offices of The United Nations, marijuana is, in fact, the most commonly used drug on the face of planet Earth. Yet, despite the wide spread usage of the hemp plant and general acceptance amongst 41% of the American public, our government has spent an estimated 500 billion dollars over 40 years in order to suppress and destroy the drug market in all aspects - with no long term success. Drug use seems to stay at a consistent balance year after year with occassional spikes and decline, but still a large portion of the American public use recreational drugs regularly. Perhaps it is time we weigh what the government has told us about marijuana against what we actually know and come to a conclusion.

I.
Labeled as a Schedule I drug, marijuana is cited as having a high potential for abuse, no clear medicinal use, and a lack of anticipated safety for use of the substance (considering this criteria both tobacco and alcohol should be labeled Schedule I). To none of these claims does Schedule I really apply to cannabis itself, and the falsehood becomes illuminated even more when we face the facts. Studies have proven that long term marijuana usage is actually less detrimental physically and psychologically than both use of tobacco and alcohol, with no realistically conceivable tendencies toward addiction or overdose. It does in fact have medicinal purposes which are just now being realized to their full potential to treat horribley painful ailments like cancer and AIDs, as well as help people with common afflictions like depression and anxiety if used in reason. As for there being a "lack of anticipated safety" in the consumption of marijuana, in what sense? It has been concluded that cannabis causes no detriment to cognitive ability of the individual user nor negative impact on global intelligence, it would take 5000 times more than the usual amount of marijuana to die from use, and the smoker of the hemp will actually temporarilly decline in tendencies of aggression in favor of passivity while on the drug.

II.
Once presented with the facts of The Drug War one must ask, how did it get this way? How has consumption of a substance caused so much trouble and depleted so much taxpayer money? What sort of mislead corrupt fool would have declared a War on Drugs and began one of the biggest failed programs in American History? Richard Millhouse Nixon. The year was 1972 and even after his appointed "National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse" informed him that there was no reason to keep marijuana illegal, Nixon had other, more politcally inclined plans. He decided that after and long night of dropping Agent Orange and Napalm in Vietnam, he would take those dope smoking Flower Power hippies down a notch or two and declared drugs "public enemy number one". He would also later be recorded as believing that the "radical demonstrators" and "Jewish psychiatrists" were behind the wide spread advocacy of marijuana, and believed that people drank "to have fun" but smoked pot "to get high" which disagreed with his Quaker heritage. And so he urged an all out war "on all fronts". This was the start of the endless, costly war designed to keep the public dumbed down and off drugs. It seems that the only major success of The War on Drugs, isn't the end of consumption, but a suppression of national debate. It is now a sort of taboo, even a social stigma to argue in the favor of legalization - almost laughable when people feel inclined to dismiss the argument all together. Even our modern presidents who claim to "not have inhaled" pass it off as a joke. There is a loss of interest in the now elderly Baby Boomer generation, even though this war causes murders of the drug cultivators and kingpins the same.

III.
In the same way the Temperance movement distorted truths in order to inflict fourteen years of Puritan wrath in the form of alcohol prohibition, the government has found itself a whole new niche of misinformation in the long history of banned substances. "This is your brain on drugs", Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No", and police-run DARE campaigns are just a sliver of a wide span history of misinformation. The very first law pertaining to marijuana restrictions, which forced sellers to obtain a license to distribute the plant (and effectively made it illegal entirely as nobody would admit to being a seller without said license) was called The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. This passed through Congress on the claims that the plant caused violence in "the degenerate races" in reference to Mexican immigrants and black jazz musicians who smoked the plant. This was the age of Reefer Madness, when propaganda began to circulate that marijuana caused insanity, criminality, and even death. Fifty-five years later and George Bush Sr. would equate drug use to a national "act of terror", but surely a Bush could not have really meant something so brash and inarticulate. Then there is The Gateway Drug Theory, by far the most innane and incessent refusal for drug legalization there is, as there is no study to back this claim, only a convienant assumption that marijuana is the predecessor to and root cause of hard drug use.

IV.
There is no good reason to keep cannabis illegal. A minority of citizens should not be arrested for smoking the leaves of a natural plant when they pose no threat to other citizens. Half a million nonviolent cannabis users are arrested and thrown in jail every single year. To what function does it serve the people that the government spends mounds of tax payer money on top of the billions of funds they have already spent on The War on Drugs in order to imprison otherwise lawabiding citizens. Rather than wasting all this money on supressing a harmless drug, just legalize it and use regulation. Then the government would have the power to permit businesses to sell cannabis, could set a modest age regulation, prevent people from driving under the influence, and make harsh punishments for pettling the substance to young children.They could also put a tax on the marijuana sold in the same way they do with booz and cigarettes in order to raise federal funds. A portion of that huge income of tax money could then be used for treatment programs of more serious addictive drugs such as alcohol, meth, and heroin, as well as help in designing honest, informative educational programs that teach children the consequences of drug abuse. If we would rather choose to do nothing and allow so many in-demand substances to remain at blackmarket status, we allow drug lords to reap the reward of sales and mindless violence to forever insue between criminals and military efforts with no real sign of improvement.

Keeping marijuana and drugs of the like illegal is expensive, dangerous, and ill thought out. Prohibition is the cause to many of our drug related problems and great exaggerations by way of government propaganda has left a cloud of smoke around the national debate and an unwillingness to make it the discussion. We are better off to regulate marijuana and use the collected tax money for substance abuse treatment and education programs. All this is not to say we have not come a long way in our national history from what our founding fathers have left us with. And though it was President Barack Obama's drug czar Gil Kerlikowske who, in his own bout of Reefer Madness, clarified "marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit" and "legalization is not in the the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine", it was George Washington who said "Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed. Sow it everywhere".

[LaMont Cranston]

Pappa, I've wondered about this for years, since I started inhaling in my fraternity in college. The guys I was smoking with were all future doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc., but, after all this time, the marijuana laws are still a mish-mosh that varies from state to state. I suspect that the reason, whether those in power want to admit it or not, marijuana is illegal is that it has to do with the government wishing to control the populace, regardless of how futile, racist or expensive those efforts are.

Basically, there is always a status quo, the way that things are right now. Then, people, ideas and inventions come along and change the way things are, and we often know the names of the people and things that made the change happen (i.e. Columbus, Gutenberg, Luther, Galileo, Copernicus, Jefferson, Darwin, Einstein, etc.). It's pretty much common knowledge that a number of US Presidents (i.e. Kennedy, Clinton, Geo. W. Bush, Obama) have inhaled, but not a one of them...or hardly anybody else...actually wants to speak out and take a stand to actually legalize marijuana.

In many ways, it's a shame that people go to jail and the government spends an incredible amount of time, money and energy to harass its citizens over the use of a relatively benign substance. I'd like to say I expect things to change sometime soon, but until a politician with real balls comes along, it's probably not going to happen.

[MrJonno]

Its simpler than that, to legalise drugs will cost more votes than it will gain

For most voters it would be a neutral issue and would have no effect either way, so why bother changing?