Slashdot

This situation aside, I don't believe the prohibition failure is a universally applicable example that can be cited every time the government wants to regulate something that's inherently hard to regulate. It's a balance between the cost associated with enforcement and the cost of allowing the activity to occur unregulated.

Prohibition is a great example because drugs and gambling have two things in common: there's no victim. Someone can gamble away their last cent if that's really how they want to spend their mortal life; this doesn't force you or me to do anything. As I view the protection of civil rights to be the main reason why government has law enforcement powers, and no one is using force or fraud to infringe anyone's civil rights here, I am having a hard time understanding why government is even involved. This is exactly like Prohibition, during which some people wanted to drink alcohol, didn't force anyone else to drink if they didn't want to, and still the government felt a need to create a victimless crime. Just like with alcohol, this seems to be based on some kind of Puritannical outrage and has little to do with logic and reason.

If you don't apply the calculus correctly then you could argue that murder is hard to prosecute, therefore we should just allow it. After all, prohibition failed. Ditto for all hard drugs. Should we allow unrestricted use of heroin and cocaine? There may be some callous people who would argue that banning drugs is interfering with Darwinian mechanisms, but the reality is that many youth don't know what's good for them, and need to have access to hard drugs removed to protect themselves from making poor decisions in the period they are still learning to evaluate choices maturely.

If you think drug prohibition has removed the street availability of drugs, it's because you frankly haven't done the slightest research on it. For many youths, alcohol is actually more difficult to obtain than illegal drugs for the simple reason that the store clerk wants to see ID but the drug dealer doesn't. People might go into drug withdrawals because they cannot afford heroin and cocaine, but not because they don't know where to find them. The War on Drugs has been a total failure in this regard, just like alcohol Prohibition was a total failure. A total failure unless, of course, your goal was to expand the police powers of government, in which case it has been quite successful.

Murder directly hurts another human being. More technically, it denies them of basic rights, like the right to live.

Neither alcohol nor gambling does this. A father might beat his kid in a drunken rage, or bankrupt the family (even make them homeless) from gambling debts, but in this case, it is the father who is doing each of these. The alcohol, for one, is an inanimate object.

Yes.

Why shouldn't we?

And that is the real problem -- so educate them on what's good for them.

And again, drugs are inanimate objects. It's possible to abuse cough medicine, after all, just as it's possible to use cocaine properly -- consider coca tea.

So, that works about as well as prohibition.

That is: These kids have about as much access as they always did. As causality says, these drugs may be easier to obtain than alcohol. Telling them "don't try it" is about as effective as abstinence-only education.

Now, I still haven't tried drugs and alcohol, but my parents actually went out of their way to explain the differences between drugs. They made it clear that they don't approve, but they also didn't lie to me about things like marijuana, which probably wouldn't be that harmful, versus cocaine and heroin, which would probably destroy my life.

If it's about maturity, why are hard drugs illegal at any age, but alcohol is legal at 21?

It's also worth mentioning: The war on drugs, like prohibition, has significant collateral damage. Leaving drug convictions aside, there's still the massive network of organized crime that would utterly collapse if we started making and selling drugs legally. It would also cut the balls off of the real, bloody war that's happening in Mexico -- seems we can tolerate drug prohibition because the violence is down there, rather than in our back yard, as it was with alcohol prohibition -- but with Americans growing their own drugs, there wouldn't be so much traffic through Mexico.

There's also the deal the American government has struck with Peru, which includes an attempt to eradicate the Coca plant from Peru. Coca, as you may know, can be used to make cocaine, if processed and insanely concentrated. By itself, though, the coca leaf makes a mild tea, much milder than coffee -- and it's an important part of their culture, which we are killing off, because someone might make cocaine out of it.

Consider a world in which coffee was illegal. Sure, if you drink too much coffee, you get jittery, and the withdrawal headaches are painful. If you drink enough coffee, you could probably kill yourself. And coffee is fairly dilute -- suppose you took the syrup used to make fountain drinks, and just drank that straight, or snorted it. Don't you think that'd be dangerous? Clearly, we should regulate coffee to protect kids from themselves.

Apply the prohibition lesson liberally, until it sinks in. If you can't tell the difference between murder and alcoholism, you clearly haven't learned the lesson of prohibition.