Opinions - Drug prohibition "successes"

[malcolm kyle]

#1. It provides criminal enterprise with an endless source of tax free income.


#2. It increases the power of the state over the power of the people.


#3. It's a success for fascism, dictators, the prison industrial complex, the'drug' testing industry, cops on the take, corrupt politicians, gangs and terrorists, secret government agencies wishing to conduct expensive covert operations.


#4. It gives people who need it a politically correct group to blame and hate. Example: "Those druggies and legalizers are destroying everything good and wholesome in the world".


#5. It paints the world in black and white for people that are unable to see that reality comes in infinite shades.


#6. Drug prohibition is a incredible success at using fear, prejudice and ignorance to accomplish it's immoral goals.



Can anyone add to this list?

Reputation Comments on this post:

Great thread topic. Also, a clever way to discuss the topic of drug prohibition.

[Salvinorin A]

#7 As a whole, it limits the amount of consumption of the prohibited drug. (Refer to the "Noble Experiment.")

What is the point of this thread? to vent off anger for drug laws? So far all swim has read was an angry rant....these get nothing done...and not only are there several threads like this.....but swiWE should working on ways to fix it...rather than complain about them.

hxxp://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php <- example

[malcolm kyle]

Salvinorin; your claim that prohibition limits the amount of consumption of the prohibited drug is far from correct.

You obviously have not read anything from THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW HEARINGS before the SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY April 5 to 24, 1926

It is quite clear from these hearings that prohibition in no way curtailed the flow of alcohol.

"When the prohibition amendment was passed and the Volstead Act was enacted, about three months after that I came through Portland, Oreg. Now there is a certain district in Portland Oreg. where there is the so-called employment district--- it is usually amongst the working people, called the "slave market"--- and I was the most astonished man you ever saw. Before that I had seen drunkenness there, dilapidated men, helpless, and in any condition that you do not want to see human beings. This time, three months after this act was passed there was an entire change. The men walked around from one place to another looking for employment, seamen and others. And they were sober. And they looked at the conditions, and they said, "No, we will wait a little." There was more independence amongst them than I had ever seen before. That very class which is the worst and lowest class that we know of amongst the seamen and workingmen. And I became an ardent advocate of the Volstead Act.
Two years afterwards I came through the same identical place, staying in Portland for about three days, and went to the very same place for the purpose of looking at the situation, and the condition was worse than it had been prior to the passage of the law. As long as the prohibition legislation was enforced, could be enforced, as long as the bootlegging element had not been organized, and not get the stuff, everything looked well. But the moment that they could get it they got it. And they will find it when nobody else can. They will find it somewhere. If it is to be bought in the vicinity any where they will find it. And the condition is worse than it ever was, because the stuff that they drink is worse than ever." The statement of Andrew Furuseth before Congress in 1926 describing what happened in the opening years of Prohibition.

"I am against Prohibition because it has set the cause of temperance back twenty years; because it has substituted an ineffective campaign of force for an effective campaign of education; because it has replaced comparatively uninjurious light wines and beers with the worst kind of hard liquor and bad liquor; because it has increased drinking not only among men but has extended drinking to women and even children"~William Randolph Hearst, initially a supporter of Prohibition, explaining his change of mind in 1929.


So now please explain to us why we should continue to provide trillions in nontaxable income for rampaging tattooed gang members, Colombia guerrillas and paramilitary thugs or the CIA etc?


The drug war cannot be won and is in fact the very cause of most of the violence that we and our families are now subjected to.

Just remember ~once prohibition ended, so did all the gunplay to control the market.


Salvinorin; those of us who have taken the trouble to research this properly have good reason to be angry; the Constitution has been trampled on and we are slowly being led down the path to enslavement and tyranny.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by malcolm kyle

Salvinorin; your claim that prohibition limits the amount of consumption of the prohibited drug is far from correct.

You obviously have not read anything from THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW HEARINGS before the SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY April 5 to 24, 1926

It is quite clear from these hearings that prohibition in no way curtailed the flow of alcohol.

"When the prohibition amendment was passed and the Volstead Act was enacted, about three months after that I came through Portland, Oreg. Now there is a certain district in Portland Oreg. where there is the so-called employment district--- it is usually amongst the working people, called the "slave market"--- and I was the most astonished man you ever saw. Before that I had seen drunkenness there, dilapidated men, helpless, and in any condition that you do not want to see human beings. This time, three months after this act was passed there was an entire change. The men walked around from one place to another looking for employment, seamen and others. And they were sober. And they looked at the conditions, and they said, "No, we will wait a little." There was more independence amongst them than I had ever seen before. That very class which is the worst and lowest class that we know of amongst the seamen and workingmen. And I became an ardent advocate of the Volstead Act.
Two years afterwards I came through the same identical place, staying in Portland for about three days, and went to the very same place for the purpose of looking at the situation, and the condition was worse than it had been prior to the passage of the law. As long as the prohibition legislation was enforced, could be enforced, as long as the bootlegging element had not been organized, and not get the stuff, everything looked well. But the moment that they could get it they got it. And they will find it when nobody else can. They will find it somewhere. If it is to be bought in the vicinity any where they will find it. And the condition is worse than it ever was, because the stuff that they drink is worse than ever." The statement of Andrew Furuseth before Congress in 1926 describing what happened in the opening years of Prohibition.

"I am against Prohibition because it has set the cause of temperance back twenty years; because it has substituted an ineffective campaign of force for an effective campaign of education; because it has replaced comparatively uninjurious light wines and beers with the worst kind of hard liquor and bad liquor; because it has increased drinking not only among men but has extended drinking to women and even children"~William Randolph Hearst, initially a supporter of Prohibition, explaining his change of mind in 1929.


So now please explain to us why we should continue to provide trillions in nontaxable income for rampaging tattooed gang members, Colombia guerrillas and paramilitary thugs or the CIA etc?


The drug war cannot be won and is in fact the very cause of most of the violence that we and our families are now subjected to.

Just remember ~once prohibition ended, so did all the gunplay to control the market.


Salvinorin; those of us who have taken the trouble to research this properly have good reason to be angry; the Constitution has been trampled on and we are slowly being led down the path to enslavement and tyranny.

You may have just cause but his point is that you're doing SFA about it through threads like these - yes you oppose the drug war and think Nazis are taking over the country - we've heard it already and we're all real worried, but we also know that we can't just sit here bouncing the same old arguments off the forum walls, we can't keep posting the same angry rhetoric, we have to actually reach out and start to change things for the better. Salvinorin and I have both taken the trouble to do our own research, I'm sure, and although I can't speak for him I'd be pretty damn sure that he knew every last detail of that little lot before you posted it, just like I did. The real question is why are you preaching to the priests? If you have something new and interesting, perhaps based on contemporary events, fresh historical findings or new scientific research then please, please share, but you can leave out the tired old arguments that we are not only well acquainted with but SWIM (aha) in every time we log onto this forum.

I would say that this isn't criticism, but it is, I just hope that it's constructive. I also apologise in advance for any insult you may derive from this, I did not intend a personal attack.

[malcolm kyle]

Originally Posted by FuBai

You may have just cause but his point is that you're doing SFA about it through threads like these - yes you oppose the drug war and think Nazis are taking over the country - we've heard it already and we're all real worried, but we also know that we can't just sit here bouncing the same old arguments off the forum walls, we can't keep posting the same angry rhetoric, we have to actually reach out and start to change things for the better. Salvinorin and I have both taken the trouble to do our own research, I'm sure, and although I can't speak for him I'd be pretty damn sure that he knew every last detail of that little lot before you posted it, just like I did. The real question is why are you preaching to the priests? If you have something new and interesting, perhaps based on contemporary events, fresh historical findings or new scientific research then please, please share, but you can leave out the tired old arguments that we are not only well acquainted with but SWIM (aha) in every time we log onto this forum.

I would say that this isn't criticism, but it is, I just hope that it's constructive. I also apologise in advance for any insult you may derive from this, I did not intend a personal attack.

FuBai; Salvinorin clearly stated that he believed that prohibition limits the amount of consumption of the prohibited drug. Or did I miss something?
If i did miss something then I apologise to both of you, but if Salvanorim stands by his initial statement then I believe that I was fully justified in countering his statement with the facts that I unearthed. Educating each other should be viewed as a neccessary step towards ending this dangerous fiasco.

So please, may we hear Salvinorin again on this; I'm quite sure that he's capable of speaking for himself.

[Salvinorin A]

Malcom, swim is reading this out of his history textbook (the person who wrote that segment in particular is a PhD and professor at Stanford in American history (his name is Kennedy swim thinks). SWIY can go argue it with him.

Nonetheless...

Malcom, swim thinks swiy needs to check up on history. When the prohibition came out, how does swiy think it got passed? Women? church groups? NO! they always wanted prohibition because they hated seeing drunk husbands. The people who passed it are the people in the south and west. Most of them were protestant farmers who didn't have time to participate in drinking. The only people it really affected were the people in the east and mostly New England where the german and italian immigrants were, that's why all the organized crime and speakeasies started popping up over there. Everything else was simply miniscule in comparison to the national picture of things.

Anyway....this doesn't have much effect now because a lot of people are keen on alcohol.....way different from back then. SWIM figured that people with decent knowledge of this subject would simply understand the sarcastic nature of swim's comment. So for that, swim will apologize.....he really doesn't believe prohibition works.

SWIM is only trying to emphasize what Fubai was saying, it really is pointless to talk about all the harm it's doing to people who already know. (Talking about how much swiWE all hate anti drug laws on a drugs forum......if anything it's damaging swiOur credibility). SWIM doesn't support these drug laws at all, so swim doesn't see the necessity in lashing out so violently, swim has his own opinions (and guess what....who would of thought.....they happen to be similar to swiys!).

And even if there was something constructive going on in this thread, it would be off topic and would belong in a thread that most likely already exists.

Sal-A

[zera]

#8 By stigmatizing and sensationalizing a relatively innocous activity it makes you seem like more of a badass than you are and can potentially get you laid.

Reputation Comments on this post:

so there are one liner's that deserve rep

[malcolm kyle]

Originally Posted by Salvinorin A

SWIM figured that people with decent knowledge of this subject would simply understand the sarcastic nature of swim's comment. So for that, swim will apologize.....he really doesn't believe prohibition works.

SWIM is only trying to emphasize what Fubai was saying, it really is pointless to talk about all the harm it's doing to people who already know. (Talking about how much swiWE all hate anti drug laws on a drugs forum......if anything it's damaging swiOur credibility). SWIM doesn't support these drug laws at all, so swim doesn't see the necessity in lashing out so violently, swim has his own opinions (and guess what....who would of thought.....they happen to be similar to swiys!).

And even if there was something constructive going on in this thread, it would be off topic and would belong in a thread that most likely already exists.

Sal-A

Salvinorim; With all due respect; It was in no way apparent that you were being sarcastic. And what on earth are you on about when you use the term 'lashing out violently'?

The job of any anti-prohibition activist is to inform, and that includes informing each other, and if that's not necessary than at least it's our duty to inform the audience --these threads are read not only by ourselves.

[malcolm kyle]

Originally Posted by zera

#8 By stigmatizing and sensationalizing a relatively innocous activity it makes you seem like more of a badass than you are and can potentially get you laid.

Thanx Zera; that's more in the spirit of what I was looking for; this will most certainly be added to a future OP of mine at another cyber venue pretty soon.

[Salvinorin A]

Sarcasm doesn't always go well when nobody can hear the tone of voice, swim still doesn't think that it's completely undetectable.

Not that this argument should continue, but I just wanna say one more thing and then I'll either stay out of this thread (or say my own opinions truthfully).

I meant lashing out violently because look how much judgement swiy passed by swim's one single comment.

So now please explain to us why we should continue to provide trillions in nontaxable income for rampaging tattooed gang members, Colombia guerrillas and paramilitary thugs or the CIA etc?


The drug war cannot be won and is in fact the very cause of most of the violence that we and our families are now subjected to.

Just remember ~once prohibition ended, so did all the gunplay to control the market.


Salvinorin; those of us who have taken the trouble to research this properly have good reason to be angry; the Constitution has been trampled on and we are slowly being led down the path to enslavement and tyranny.

SWIM doesn't remember arguing any of this.....all he did was state a fact (which may or may not be true...but considering the time period...it most likely was). SWIY really needs to recognize swiy's own prejudices and really be more sensitive, especially when swiy is so strong in swiy's convictions....swim will pass his own judgement and assume that most of swim's convictions are very similar to swiy's. The difference is, he doesn't find it necessary to post it in a thread that a bunch of people with the exact same opinion read.

Sal-A

[malcolm kyle]

Originally Posted by Salvinorin A

Sarcasm doesn't always go well when nobody can hear the tone of voice, swim still doesn't think that it's completely undetectable.

Not that this argument should continue, but I just wanna say one more thing and then I'll either stay out of this thread (or say my own opinions truthfully).

I meant lashing out violently because look how much judgement swiy passed by swim's one single comment.

SWIM doesn't remember arguing any of this.....all he did was state a fact (which may or may not be true...but considering the time period...it most likely was). SWIY really needs to recognize swiy's own prejudices and really be more sensitive, especially when swiy is so strong in swiy's convictions....swim will pass his own judgement and assume that most of swim's convictions are very similar to swiy's. The difference is, he doesn't find it necessary to post it in a thread that a bunch of people with the exact same opinion read.

Sal-A

Salvinorim; It's getting increasingly difficult to take you seriously. #1. Either you meant what you said or you didn't. If you didn't mean it, then why tell me to go and take it up with the source of your statement? #2. Not all of us here are in complete agreement with each other, and besides that, just like any other forum, we have an audience of lurchers etc who are worth informing. #3. If you do hold similar convictions, then let's get on with it!

[Salvinorin A]

Alright, I'll clarify what swim means....

In reference to the prohibition.....yes....there was as a whole less consumption of alcohol for the majority of the time. In fact, it's suggested that it could have actually worked if it was enforced properly. They had a committee to help prevent alcohol from entering the country, but it was basically 1 designated officer for about every 200 miles of coast line......completely ineffective.

In reference to now.......no....swim in no way or any how believes that drug prohibition is working. He finds that the War on Drugs was ONE of Nixon's great failures.

#9 It effectively overcrowds US prisons with relatively harmless people and groups them with people that can harm them.

Could prohibition work? swim thinks so, if it was enforced enough such that the next few generations of children were taught to never touch drugs (and they'd be less available) so eventually it would die down to a miniscule amount. On the other hand...the key word is "enough." There is already a huge enforcement of drugs which is obviously not working......however....there are also many many drugs, so it's not as easy to just pinpoint one and win "the war on drugs."

Does swiy want prohibition to work? Hell no. On the other hand, swim's opinion is very biased, he does not have children for example (however many friends who have been hurt or lost their lives because of their drug habits). SWIM's father smoked cigarettes for a long period of his life, and now votes for higher taxes on cigarettes simply because he doesn't want swim smoking (not that it matters now since swim is not a minor). A lot of drugs swim wouldn't mind his kids using, but who knows....perspectives change. But this thread isn't about our kids (there's already a thread on it)....swim's just pointing out his bias.

Sal-A

[cra$h]

#10- today swim was offered a drug that heroin addicts use to get off the shit, and learned quality cocaine is easily availible. In other words, swim's gettin high, and fucking the government, who regularly fucks swim, possibly even more

[malcolm kyle]

Originally Posted by Salvinorin A

Alright, I'll clarify what swim means....

In reference to the prohibition.....yes....there was as a whole less consumption of alcohol for the majority of the time. In fact, it's suggested that it could have actually worked if it was enforced properly. They had a committee to help prevent alcohol from entering the country, but it was basically 1 designated officer for about every 200 miles of coast line......completely ineffective.

In reference to now.......no....swim in no way or any how believes that drug prohibition is working. He finds that the War on Drugs was ONE of Nixon's great failures.

#9 It effectively overcrowds US prisons with relatively harmless people and groups them with people that can harm them.

Could prohibition work? swim thinks so, if it was enforced enough such that the next few generations of children were taught to never touch drugs (and they'd be less available) so eventually it would die down to a miniscule amount. On the other hand...the key word is "enough." There is already a huge enforcement of drugs which is obviously not working......however....there are also many many drugs, so it's not as easy to just pinpoint one and win "the war on drugs."

Does swiy want prohibition to work? Hell no. On the other hand, swim's opinion is very biased, he does not have children for example (however many friends who have been hurt or lost their lives because of their drug habits). SWIM's father smoked cigarettes for a long period of his life, and now votes for higher taxes on cigarettes simply because he doesn't want swim smoking (not that it matters now since swim is not a minor). A lot of drugs swim wouldn't mind his kids using, but who knows....perspectives change. But this thread isn't about our kids (there's already a thread on it)....swim's just pointing out his bias.

Sal-A

Salvinorin; your claim that there was “a whole less consumption of alcohol for the majority of the time” does not seem to be supported by the facts, but if you do have evidence to support your statement then please supply links.

THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW HEARINGS are full of reliable eyewitness accounts of countrywide drunken debauchery, corruption and home brewing on a mass scale:


Senator REED of Missouri: What is your knowledge and experience with reference to the question, and I do not mean in volume, but as to whether the manufacture in the home is becoming general, the making of home brews and the making of whisky, and so forth in the home, is becoming general?


Mr. MCSORLEY: You will find that the workingmen of this country, 90 per cent of them, are either making wines, beer or whisky out of every known vegetable and fruit that exists. Everyone has his own special concoction. They even make wine out of parsnips and such stuff. Whether such a beverage is healthful for them or not, I do not know, but I do not think so.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/.../mcsorley.html

Kindly check this out also: Deaths Due to Alcohol, Cook County 1910-1926

You also claim that prohibition might work if it was enforced enough, but this shows a lack of understanding for the Laws of supply and demand, which appear to work just as well with contraband as with everything else:

1. The supply drops more than the demand, so the price goes up.

2. The product is forced underground. Without a regulated & efficient market, there is less price competition.

3. Lacking competition, dealers charge monopoly prices, and profit margins widen.

4. The big profits draw in many people including those who would not otherwise break the law, spreading corruption amongst law enforcement and disdain for the law among otherwise law-abiding citizens.

5. Supply becomes conspicuous, marketing becomes more aggressive, the price falls, and demand rises, drawing the attention of the forces that got the substance outlawed in the first place.


6. The law cracks down on the supply, driving the amateurs out of business and leaving a more ruthless form of organized crime in control, who now have even higher profit margins and also connections to corrupt law enforcement. At this point the illegal market has attracted the people capable of making it an institution, including many who wear badges or hold political office. Henceforth it will be all but impossible to eliminate the suppliers.


Finally, you say that your position is biased because you have no children to worry about. But may I tell you that my two daughters & two grandchildren are my main motivation in helping to end this fiasco, as I sincerely believe that Prohibition always has, and always will, make matters far worse for all of us.


Thank you kindly for your attention!

[jilola]

I will side with the anti-prohibitionists and point out that the prohibition in Finland was scrapped because (overtly) popular demand and (covertly) because of the rampant smuggling and illicit alcohol production (which still continues).
Some of the well known and wealthy families own their good fortune to the prohibition.
A similar story can be read in every country's history that tried to enact prohibition throughout time.