Lessons Learned from Prohibition

[Lunar]

Ok, I'm going to look at what happened during the prohibition and compare that to what's happening now.  Obviously this will apply to drugs because that is the most direct connection, but it can also apply to many other "black market" crimes such as prostitution and gambling.  If anyone is bothered my my constant rants about the foolishness of government policy, they're more than welcome to click the "back" button on their internet browser.  Overall, this is probably a general attack on a good portion of the things you believe in.

This CATO Institute quote sums up my point the best:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The first of these unintended consequences is the unsure quality of a lot of the alcohol produced.  Without government regulation, improperly made moonshine is responsible for a large number of deaths over that short time period.  Of course, a large portion of the water was cut with flavored water and so on, but the real problem was the alcohol distilled in car radiators and improper chemicals.  Tens of thousands of victims (oops, I mean "criminals") had their hands and feet permanently paralyzed, and many hundreds suffered blindness, brain damage, and death. 

-You can see this applying to the modern war on drugs especially.  Many people have died from having their heroin cut with fentanyl, an interesting drug that has a very high potency and that is easy to overdose on.  Heroin, when it's pure, is an extremely hard to OD on.  However, when fentanyl is introduced into poor-quality heroin, users not only think it's high-quality heroin (and thus can do more of it safely), they feel safer doing their normal doses. 

-In both prostitution and needle-based drug use, modern restrictions against each have driven them underground and increased STDs.  There has never been an incident of AIDs reported for a prostitute in the legal counties in Nevada, where every prostitute goes through monthly tests.   When STDs become more prevalent, this affects EVERYONE, even morally righteous people who would never consider touching an illegal drug.

So, we have people cluttering our hospitals and indeed mortuaries that don't have to be there. 

Secondly, the prohibition resulted in loss revenue.  The government colleted five hundred million dollars annually due to taxes on alcohol, but after prohibition all that money went poof.  Not only did criminal organizations capture all of that five hundred million, but because the violent ones quickly developed monopolies over their localities, the profit margins could be drastically increased.

-I think this pretty blatantly hits every black market item.  Furthermore, enforcement requires police, investigators, all kinds of bureaucracy, legislators, lawyers, judges, and prison cells.  Elimination of victimless crimes would mean that all of these would be able to be focused on eliminating violence and rights-violations.

So we get less money in exchange for higher costs.

Thirdly, prohibition made millionaires out of two-bit violent criminals.  In the black market, violence is the only way of  settling disputes because people cannot call the police.

-  Prostitutes can now be more-or-less freely raped and the prostitute has difficulty calling the police.  Pimps can use violence to threaten the prostitutes and keep them in line, and again, the prostitutes cannot call the police (as least not effectively).  Drug dealer/users shoot and rob each other in turf wars and normal disputes, 

Alcohol was declared a major cause of crime.  Social reformers interviewed prisoners who mostly claimed that their actions were caused by alcohol.  However, eliminating alcohol didn't quite eliminate crime like the fools had hoped.  In the first year that prohibition had passed, "according to a study of 30 major U.S. cities, the number of crimes increased 24 percent between 1920 and 1921."  Oops.

In 1914, before the Harrison Narcotics Act, there had been roughly 4,000 federal convicts.  By 1932, at the end of prohibition, that number was above 26,500.   The federal money going towards prison maintanence and construction increased one thousand percent during this time period.  Even adjusting for population and all kinds of fun variables, this is a marked increase.  I would imagine that sending these people to prison, and the crime that resulted from the prohibition, broke up more families than that slight decrease in alcohol consumption saved.


U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1975), part 1, p. 414.

*Gasp*

The homicide rate increased during the years of prohibition and decreased as soon as it was removed.  Criminals found that they had more money to organize, all of course provided by the moral crusaders giving them the markets for drugs, gambling, and prostitution.  The Purple Gang, which was a Jewish gang created entirely for the purpose of bootlegging in the Detroit area, was responsible for over 500 murders.  Al Capone became king of Chicago through alcohol sales.

-Innocent and non-so-innocent kinds are still being mowed down in modern prohibition-related disputes.

Fourthly, once prohibition became enforced, the communities no longer had the ability to restrict when and where alcohol could be sold.  This actually resulted in the increase in availability of alcohol and prevented local ordinances from limiting alcohol sales in the central parts of the city, around churches, and around schools.

[David S]

You provide a very logical argument. But don't expect government to be motivated by logic.

[Lunar]

You provide a very logical argument. But don't expect government to be motivated by logic.

I'm not so egotistical as to hope my post would spark serious government change, haha.  I'm just presenting a personal argument to the forum, ready to refine my own opinion in the face of challenge, criticism, or addition.

[Nym90]

I agree with your argument, Lunar. There are definitely clear parallels between prohibition of alcohol and prohibition of drugs. It didn't work very well last time, and the effects are similar now. There is clearly a market for drugs like marijuana today, as there was for alcohol in the 1920's, and by forcing it underground, the government loses any ability to regulate and control it, and they can't destroy the market simply by banning it. It just puts more money into the hands of criminals instead of into the hands of law-abiding citizens.

[MissCatholic]

Politicians dont understand common sense. common sense has no monetary value.

[Lunar]

I agree with your argument, Lunar. There are definitely clear parallels between prohibition of alcohol and prohibition of drugs. It didn't work very well last time, and the effects are similar now. There is clearly a market for drugs like marijuana today, as there was for alcohol in the 1920's, and by forcing it underground, the government loses any ability to regulate and control it, and they can't destroy the market simply by banning it. It just puts more money into the hands of criminals instead of into the hands of law-abiding citizens.

The argument for legalizing marijuana is childs-play, haha.  As a widely-used drug that is drastically less harmful than both nicotine and alcohol and surprisingly devoid of substantial side-effects, the arguments against marijuana just don't hold up on any level.  I specifically argued points in favor of legalizing heroin, just because that makes the argument that much harder for me, hah.

This is something broader and applies to any item or service a reasonable person would like to possess in a free society: guns, prostitutes, gambling, and so on.  I fear we are in too much of a hurry to outlaw things we find distasteful, without realizing that we are exchanging police force for a loss in liberty - that's like ripping up a twenty dollar bill in exchange for being punched in the face.

[Nym90]

I agree with your argument, Lunar. There are definitely clear parallels between prohibition of alcohol and prohibition of drugs. It didn't work very well last time, and the effects are similar now. There is clearly a market for drugs like marijuana today, as there was for alcohol in the 1920's, and by forcing it underground, the government loses any ability to regulate and control it, and they can't destroy the market simply by banning it. It just puts more money into the hands of criminals instead of into the hands of law-abiding citizens.

The argument for legalizing marijuana is childs-play, haha.  As a widely-used drug that is drastically less harmful than both nicotine and alcohol and surprisingly devoid of substantial side-effects, the arguments against marijuana just don't hold up on any level.  I specifically argued points in favor of legalizing heroin, just because that makes the argument that much harder for me, hah.

This is something broader and applies to any item or service a reasonable person would like to possess in a free society: guns, prostitutes, gambling, and so on.  I fear we are in too much of a hurry to outlaw things we find distasteful, without realizing that we are exchanging police force for a loss in liberty - that's like ripping up a twenty dollar bill in exchange for being punched in the face.

True. Heroin is definitely harder, and I don't think I'd support it being legalized considering the potential damage it does to people. I'm open to either side of it, though, and I don't think drug users should be punished really in any event. We should focus our expenditure of money on education and on rehabilitation programs rather than on enforcement against users.

Dealers, on the other hand, should be punished, considering how they prey on down and out individuals. Although, as you've said, the government loses its power to regulate the availability of drugs and the content of those drugs by making them illegal; I think that is a very strong argument for having them be legal but strongly regulated, which I think would be the best way to go overall. This would achieve the goal of putting the dealers out of business without punishing the users, which is what I think would be the most effective way to combat the drug problem.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

People who actl ike there's a drug "problem" and decide to attempt to impose either their skewed view of "morality" or do-gooder social engineering to try preventing people from tkaing drugs really piss me off. Let the cokeheads and heroi naddicts die on the streets for all I care. They'd be out of the gene pool/

[opebo]

Don't blame the government or the politicians - it is the intolerant voting public that is to blame.

[Lunar]

Don't blame the government or the politicians - it is the intolerant voting public that is to blame.

This is actually my main point.  I have no problem when someone wants to be intolerant though, my problem is when they want police force to enforce their intolerance against the choices of others.

The government shares some blame of course.  For example, the DEA routinely lies to make the politicians and the public think that they are actually accomplishing something.  Obviously the DEA opposes any legalization of any substances whatsoever, because when things are legal they get less funding.  The head of the DEA actually seems to support the prohibition of alcohol, despite the thousands of people it killed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.denverpost.com/letters/ci_4016245

[opebo]

Don't blame the government or the politicians - it is the intolerant voting public that is to blame.

This is actually my main point.  I have no problem when someone wants to be intolerant though, my problem is when they want police force to enforce their intolerance against the choices of others.

It is in the nature of the privately intolerant to be prone to the mental error of belief in objective morality, and to then utilize political power (aka 'police force') to enforce their preferences.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Don't blame the government or the politicians - it is the intolerant voting public that is to blame.

Which is why as soon as I get in power I plan on purging enough of the american population to make hitler, mao and stalin seem like amateurs.

[opebo]

Don't blame the government or the politicians - it is the intolerant voting public that is to blame.

Which is why as soon as I get in power I plan on purging enough of the american population to make hitler, mao and stalin seem like amateurs.

Please feed the religious to lions.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

My goal wouldn't be to purge the religious its to simply make a new order more acceptable to me.

[opebo]

My goal wouldn't be to purge the religious its to simply make a new order more acceptable to me.

If your New Order includes religious, no thanks.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

My goal wouldn't be to purge the religious its to simply make a new order more acceptable to me.

If your New Order includes religious, no thanks.

You do realize that far left types like you are high on my list. I suggest you permanently emigrate to thailand before 2024.

[opebo]

My goal wouldn't be to purge the religious its to simply make a new order more acceptable to me.

If your New Order includes religious, no thanks.

You do realize that far left types like you are high on my list. I suggest you permanently emigrate to thailand before 2024.

I'm a moderate, Vlad.

[minionofmidas]

From what I hear, Marijuana was outlawed - or maybe, the ban was enforced, sentences increased etc - right around the end of prohibition, mostly because the Revenuers wanted something to do.

[opebo]

From what I hear, Marijuana was outlawed - or maybe, the ban was enforced, sentences increased etc - right around the end of prohibition, mostly because the Revenuers wanted something to do.

Never understimate the survival instinct of the bureaucratic organization (whether 'governmental' or 'private').

[Bono]

Don't blame the government or the politicians - it is the intolerant voting public that is to blame.

This is actually my main point.  I have no problem when someone wants to be intolerant though, my problem is when they want police force to enforce their intolerance against the choices of others.

The government shares some blame of course.  For example, the DEA routinely lies to make the politicians and the public think that they are actually accomplishing something.  Obviously the DEA opposes any legalization of any substances whatsoever, because when things are legal they get less funding.  The head of the DEA actually seems to support the prohibition of alcohol, despite the thousands of people it killed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.denverpost.com/letters/ci_4016245

Well, once created, a government agency is very dificult to destroy. Its tendency is to get bigger and make up new wasy to "justify" its existence.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The nee

My goal wouldn't be to purge the religious its to simply make a new order more acceptable to me.

If your New Order includes religious, no thanks.

You do realize that far left types like you are high on my list. I suggest you permanently emigrate to thailand before 2024.

I'm a moderate, Vlad.

you're not remotely a moderate. your'e a god damn commie piece of sh**t.