To claim that prohibition “doesn’t stop one bit of drinking or smoking” is contrary to the truth. Most people do want to comply with social rules and laws.

The main reason behind the insanely high American prison population is enormous inequality. That old revered constitution should be scrapped and replaced with something a little bit more modern, if you ask me.

Very few people decide to become drug addicts or occasionally violent drunkards etc. It starts with moderate use of recreational drugs. But for a considerable percentage of drug users, severe problems follow, and these problems also affect others. Here in Sweden (which has lower alcohol consumtion than the European average), about 75% of all violent crimes are committed by intoxicated persons. More than half of all convicted murderes are or have been alcoholics. In Europe about 10% of all deaths are caused by alcohol. This is the most socially accepted drug, and its use is most widespread. Without social acceptance of alcohol use, recreational use of it would be much lower, both in moderation and in excess.

The social use of alcohol and other drugs is the very foundation of destructive drug use. The pressure to start using alcohol is tremendous in most of the western world. (In other parts of the world the situation is very different. For a majority of the world population, alcohol use is unusual. Most people have actually not drunk any alcohol for the past twelve months.)

Many proponents of liberal laws concerning drugs argue, like you do, that everyone should get to make up their own mind and decide whether they want to use drugs or not. Everyone has a right to do what they want with their body, etc. The problem is that people don’t live in isolated bubbles without interaction. The right to use drugs conflicts with the right to grow up with parents capable of taking care of you and with everyone’s right not to get beaten up, raped or run down by intoxicated people. Also it conflicts with tax-payers right to have their money contribute to something useful rather than having to be spent on treatment of drug users.

The less recreational drug use, the better. It’s very hard to convince people who have grown up in a culture or subculture where drug use (usually alcohol use) is accepted or mandatory of this, but at least it’s easier for someone who really don’t want to use drugs to abstain if there are some reasonable people like me out there, supporting them.

The war on drugs would make 1000x more sense if alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs were all illegal a well. “Who cares if people need medicine to live?” Well not really, it would be counter-productive as hell, but at least it would be more consistent.

Getting organized crime out of the picture would be a social good all by itself, both in terms of making it harder for them to fund other criminal activities and by removing the incentives for folks to be pressured into trying harder drugs. Lowering the price and thus removing the need to commit crimes to support a habit would immediately eliminate most of the other serious social ills.

The remaining issues really don’t seem worse than our socially-approved intoxicants. Nicotine is as dangerous as most illegal drugs, but is affordable so it doesn’t tend to ruin lives. Alcohol is as dangerous as most illegal drugs, but it’s cheap,  so while it ruins some lives most folks can handle it.

I’d even agree to letting the gummint monitor usage, so folks who do seem to be getting themselves into trouble can be steered toward help. And of course sales to minors are probably a bad idea, at least for anything much stronger than coffee.

A bit of rationality would save a heck of a lot of money, and a heck of a lot of lives both in our own country and overseas.

I’d also point out that Doc Smith pointed out many decades ago that a war on drugs is by definition ineffective. There’s very little use for military force when dealing with a smuggling and black market problem. You can’t kill the hydra by chopping off heads; you need to go for the body of the problem, and that’s the demand side of the equation.

Or maybe there are , you know, subtleties. Like what Ostrom won that Nobel for last year.

I haven’t given up hope for the American people, but nothing’s going to happen as long as the incompetent, greedy children of unearned, inherited wealth continue to run the country.  We are 99% peasant and 1% aristocracy, and that doesn’t seem like a winning strategy.

Doesnt stop one bit of drinking or smoking, in fact its been proven drinking went up during prohibition by an astounding rate.  SO DID CRIME!!

50% of Young Americans admit to smoking it, another 30% probably would admit it but are afraid.  The only “gateway” is the one CREATED by lying to our children about marijuana in the first place.

5% of the worlds population=American
25% of the worlds PRISONERS=American
Freedom my ass.

The potential is there for abuse of drugs, alcoholism is one obvious example of detrimental drug abuse and there are others to be sure.  Drug addiction is a disease that absolutely requires medical treatment and support.

Do you see how making drug users social pariahs and criminals interferes with the process of recovery and getting help to addicts who need it?

That’s leaving aside the fact that in many societies in history – including our own – the use of drugs or alcohol has been a ritual bringing people together and sharing.  You may or may not have similar experiences of your own, but who should have the right to make that choice?

The worst is watching him laugh and chuckle when people ask him these questions in town-hall forums. Laugh it up, asshole – people are being locked up and ruined because you can’t even try to defined a ridiculous policy like an adult.

The war on drugs has been a driving force in ruining civil liberties and invading privacy for decades now. It’s a big reason the cops are eager to go out toting machine guns and armored personnel carriers. And like any bullshit campaign, it’s merged with the ‘war on terror’ to keep steamrolling more of us into being ‘guilty’ whether we are or not. 

We do have problems. The war on drugs is one of them – but everyone has problems. We will persevere.

Legalization proponents don’t like to talk much about prevention. It’s very convenient to forget that legalization would cause increased drug use. But it’s essential to prevent drug use as much as possible, without draconian measures. Most important is to work against social acceptance of drug use. To legalize cannabis would imply that the government thinks it’s acceptable to use it, and that in itself has an effect on public opinion.

The idea of ‘winning’ a war on drugs is absurd, if winning means eradicating drug use in a society like our current one. I don’t know if that’s something your politicians are talking about, but among realistic people the goal of eradicating drug use completely is something very distant. Instead the purpose is to limit the damaging effects of drug use as much as possible, in large extent through prevention.

One of the foundations that donated is the Marijuana Policy Project, so you might as well say:”Yes, I know: Cato = Marijuana Policy Project, but the Cato Institute’s position on drug prohibition is quite sane.”

Imagine, for instance, if we could perfectly enforce all drug related laws, so anyone who ever used drugs (including through prescriptions from ‘friendly’ doctors) would be fined and/or imprisoned as per the current rules. How quickly do you think those rules would fall (including as a result of everyone in Congress trying to keep themselves out of jail)? To paraphrase Gibson, the problem with the war of drugs is that it is unevenly distributed. 

If you consider a two dimensional spectrum (personal dimension, economic dimension, both ranging from individual liberty and non-aggression all the way to heavy statism), then it is easier to reconcile a coherent picture (although still simplified). See the Nolan chart of political spectrum.

While Rome didn’t fall right away (it was far to powerful) the excesses of the aristocracy finally weakened it to the point where all it took was a little push to topple it.

I see many similarities to today.

Lots of oligarchs dig art and stuff, and benefits and gala events are good for social standing and papering over disgusting business practices.

They’re nothing if not contradictory though, supporting the arts while trying to destroy democracy, or preaching their “free market” libertarian bona fides while sucking from the Stalin/U.S. Gov/Chavez teat.

An American set himself on fire over the Iraq war.

Also, I urge to look up America’s falling status among “first’ Western worlds and get back to us.