Forty-five percent of Americans would support it, according to a new Zogby poll. Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance warns against repeating our great-grandparents’ mistakes: “a new Prohibition is not the answer — not if we want to stay safe, sane and free.” (Huffington Post, Oct. 26; more).
Cigarette prohibition
Forty-five percent of Americans would support it, according to a new Zogby poll. Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance warns against repeating our great-grandparents’ mistakes: “a new Prohibition is not the answer — not if we want to stay safe, sane and free.” (Huffington Post, Oct. 26; more).
4 Comments
Prohibition would cut out the lawyers from their $multi-bil paydays.
The inconsistency between the prohibition of cocaine, which kills 100’s a year, and the legality of cigarettes, which kill 100’s of 1000’s a year, cannot be sustained.
The era of alcohol prohibition reduced alcohol consumption by only 50%. Yet, it was a period of unparalleled productivity, growing US world leadership, wealth building, reduction in all social pathologies, including crime, contrary to popular belief, and the death rate from alcoholism, without effective medical treatment for its consequences.
Prohibition did not have the support of the majority, and the lesson must be learned from its failure.
You cannot impose a doctrine from above, in a democracy. The solid majority must be persuaded to support prohibition of a substance. The culture must condemn use socially if a law is to work, whatever the science.
Prohibit alcohol, prohibit cigarettes, make food 5 times as expensive to pay for its health consequences, you can take a 50% discount on the health budget. Cut pointless, tormenting, aggressive, health procedures at the end of life? Take another 25% off. Enjoy the freed up $tril or two.
While U.S. economic productivity in the post WW I 1920’s was quite good it is not unparalleled. A good parallel is the post WW II 1950’s. Much of the prosperity can be attributed to new technologies of the time – e.g. radios, telephones, and probably most importantly, widespread automobile ownership which led to greatly increased mobility. In fact the economy went into a brief recession in 1927 when Henry Ford closed his plants for 6 months to switch from Model T’s to model A’s. It’s unlikely that much, if any, of the prosperity was due to prohibition. And that’s ignoring the fact that economically the last 4 years of prohibition (late 1929 – late 1933) were among the worst in U.S. history!
Also I can’t find any sources supporting your comments on the crime rate. Indeed most sources I find (for example, here: Cato Policy Analysis No. 157) indicate quite the reverse, with murder rates steadily increasing throughout the 1920’s to almost twice the per capita level of period 1900 – 1910.
Food prices 5 times the current level might cut down on obesity, but causing serious malnutrition among the working poor makes it a policy unlikely to decrease overall health care costs.
About the only thing I can agree with you on is that imposing prohibition from the top down without the agreement of the governed is bad policy and doesn’t work. It is widely ignored just as it currently is with marijuana. The problem is that the artificially high profits from the law-induced scarcity go mostly to criminals. Stupid laws like this are a large contributor to corruption and further a disdain for the rule of law that concerns me.
Howcum it’s the same people behind tobacco prohibition and drug legalization?
“Howcum it’s the same people behind tobacco prohibition and drug legalization?”
In Nevada it’s not. The anti-smoking push is dressed up as a “protect the children” campaign and is championed by both sides.
Neither have yet explained to me what their children might be doing in my local bar at 2am.