How Long Does Drug Prohibition Need to Continue Before It's Declared a Failure?

[flashl]

The day we legalize drugs is the day we can begin to clean up the mess that the drug prohibition experiment has created.

How long does an experiment need to continue before it's declared a failure?

For alcohol prohibition, our US version, it was about 13 years. Between mafia crime, poisonings from adulterated beverages, and the dropping age at which people were becoming alcoholics, Americans decided that the "Noble Experiment" -- whether it should actually be regarded as noble or not -- was a bad idea. And they ended it. New York State did its part 75 years ago today, ratifying the 21st amendment to repeal the 18th amendment, bringing the Constitution one state closer to being restored. It took another half a year, until December 5th, to get the 36 states on the board that were needed at the time to get the job done. But Americans of the '30s recognized the failure of the prohibition experiment, and they took action by enacting legalization of alcohol.

Industrialist John D. Rockefeller described the evolution of his thinking that led to the recognition of prohibition's failure, in a famous 1932 letter:

"When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before."

In the context of today's leading prohibition -- the drug war -- it's important to realize that those other drugs were made illegal even before alcohol was. It was December 17th, 1914, when the Harrison Narcotics Act passed the US Congress -- ostensibly a regulatory law to synchronize America's system with a new one being adopted by countries around the world. But law enforcement interpreted it as prohibiting drugs -- coca and opium, and derivatives of them such as heroin and cocaine, were the ones in question then -- and law enforcement got its way.

Alter Net

[napi21]

1. I've asked that question many times, and my answer is always the same.

Not enough of the public is yet willing to push for it. Far too many people still view, even the use of MJ as WRONG. Look at this realistically. We can't even get the legal use of medical MJ on the Federal level, and it's the Federal Laws that need to change!

[Fovea]

2. 100 years

So long as it isn't a hot war.
We shall see if Barack understands the costs.

We need to stop fighting wars against everything that inconveniences or annoys us. Wars are ugly and expensive. Murka is broke and covered in shit in the eyes of the world.

[msongs]

3. too many ppl are making too much money from drugs being illegal - cops, prisons, dealers etc nt

[jpcrecom]

5. the alcohol, tobacco, and pharma industries

will never let pot get legal. It would erode their profits if a non-processed plant that was free for anyone to grow replaced much of the demand for their products.

[Mabus]

6. You're right

because, as everyone knows, once you smoke a joint you don't want a drink, a smoke or get a headache. :eyes: Those industries would experience a hit (no pun intended) but the market would sort it out.

fwiw, I think the number of traffic accidents would decrease because stoned people tend to drive within the speed limit and are paranoid enough to become better defensive drivers. Back when we lived in Lawrence, our KC friends would talk about how slow people drove. We finally figured it out. There were more pot smokers in Lawrence than in the greater KC area. People were going at or below the speed limit and the driver's were very friendly.

[jpcrecom]

7. yeah, rolling eyes condescention!

huzzah for adult conversations!

If you don't think that adding more mind altering substances to the regulated market would reduce the demand for those few which are currently on the market, then you need to go back to Econ 101.

pot and shrooms are known as alternative medicines that can replace prescription pharma in many areas. Were they legal, people would take those in lieu of more expensive prescription pharma.

[Mabus]

8. And the incredible thing is, there are far fewer side effects to the natural stuff

And as with the prescribed meds and alcohol there is always a reasonable expectation that some nimrod is going to abuse them. On the bright side if there is de-criminalization then people will feel freer to talk about it.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

10. Stoned VS Drunk Drivers

One needs to get a lot more stoned than drunk before becoming a menace on the road. Pot also has a nice built in safety mechanism in that around the time you reach the point of being a menace, you really don't feel like driving.

[bulldogge]

13. That is ridiculous

The idea that one form of intoxication is safer than another while operating a vehicle is ridiculous. I understand the point you were attempting to make but you fell way short on it. If you are going to place an argument for the legalization or criminalization of a substance you may want to rethink your strategy. There is a myth that people who are high make better decisions behind the wheel than those who are drunk and it is a dead end argument.

[droidamus2]

14. Not necessarily

I remember one 'study', it was a while ago actually long enough that there was no such thing as a 'link' to the story, where they tested people who had smoked marijuana in real live driving situations and the only thing they could say was that they tended to drift a little in their own lane. Understand not driving into the other lane just not maintaining the position in their lane that the testers thought they should. One kind of 'intoxication' is not the same as another though it could be claimed that pot effects your ability to concentrate unlike alcohol it does not effect your motor skills. I hate to admit it but in my younger years there were a couple of times I got behind the wheel after drinking when there was no way I should have. I was drunk enough that I literally was unable to drive effectively luckily for me and everybody else in my home town I made it home without hurting myself or somebody else. On the other hand I drove many times stoned and never was in a position where I 'couldn't' drive. Let me make it clear when I say couldn't drive on alcohol I couldn't even make a good stop at a stop sign when I wanted to. Yes I was stupid yes I would have been in a shit load of trouble if a cop had spotted me. No excuses I was wrong and shouldn't have done it. On pot I never had any trouble stopping or following any other the driving laws or operating the vehicle in any way.

[bulldogge]

16. My Point

may be misunderstood. I have had my fair share of "experimentation" in the past as well. I am completely aware that each substance creates its own unique high. The point that I am making is this when you are driving a vehicle that could potentially kill someone due to a lapse of concentration one should sit behind the wheel sober. The second point I am making is that when talking about the war on drugs an argument that is not an argument to me is the stoned driver verse the drunk driver, both of them are completely out of line and are not creating a safe driving situation. We could also lump folks who text message on their cell phones while driving etc. But to have someone sit there and try to sway public opinion by saying stoned driving is better than drunk driving is ridiculous. People drive drunk, people drive stoned that is the reality of the world one way or the other I don't appreciate it.

With that said the drug war is a joke of course. Anybody notice the rise of heroin use since we went into afghanistan? Or the fact the media used to shred Clinton for not inhaling but have quickly forgotten that Bush jr. used to be a blow head and a drunk? As with everything else in the global economy it all about money and oppression. The prison industry is modern slavery and if folks don't explore their mind at some point in their life it is difficult to see beyond everyday existence. I agree with you guys on the larger picture I just don't think this particular small battle is one worth pursuing.

Peace

[Asgaya Dihi]

17. If you stopped at both are impaired I'd agree

On this point I'd agree fully.

"The point that I am making is this when you are driving a vehicle that could potentially kill someone due to a lapse of concentration one should sit behind the wheel sober."

On the point from the prior post though from everything I've seen and read on the subject you're way off base. You said "The idea that one form of intoxication is safer than another while operating a vehicle is ridiculous."

While I'd agree that anyone driving or operating machinery which could put people at risk should be straight, off the phones, not eating or drinking, doing make-up, or whatever else, there ARE differences in degree and effect. The stats don't generally claim they were high, just that pot showed up, and while the high lasts hours the proof you got high can last weeks. Since pot shows in your system for days or weeks after use and alcohol is gone in hours it's almost certain that in many (maybe most) of the "both were in their blood" results it was actually alcohol alone playing a role, or for pot alone maybe just sloppy driving with no drug effect in some cases. Past that a drunk thinks they are some combination of speed racer and superman combined, the first thing to go is the judgment. A stoner gets paranoid and slows down, they unlike the drunk know they are impaired and are more likely to adjust for it.There have been studies on the subject by governmental and other agencies, I'll link a quick look at some explanation of them below.

http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion12.htm

While yes, it does impair you, the stats are often thrown off by the fact that alcohol is also involved in large numbers of accidents and pot can show in your system days or weeks after use. If detected it's too often assumed to be the cause when it can't even be shown that they were high at the time or that the alcohol which was ALSO in their blood wasn't the larger factor. In controlled tests, yes, someone driving on pot is marginally safer. Still shouldn't be on the road in my opinion, but it's no more truth to say one is as bad as the other than it is to claim one harmless. Neither is really true. I'd rather share the road with straight drivers than either, but I'd rather 5 stoners on the road than 1 drunk.

[bulldogge]

18. Lesson Learned

Asgaya,

I have to take this as a lessoned learned. Obviously you can tell from my number of post I am still a bit new to the DU and I now realize how important it is to really think about my response rather than let my emotional side answer. So after having some time to think about it I will put it like this: When one is attempting to argue the merit of legalization I think that it would help the overall cause to point out merits that would help people relate to the benefits of decriminalization. For instance one could bring up the values of positive social interaction that may arise between individuals or groups, the point that artist find it a key to unlocking unique perceptions in the fields of visual and audio art forms. The point that it would be a valuable cash crop or that it would lead to a decrease in criminal activity or the overcrowding of penitentiary's would all be valid points. But I do not think that it is valid to bring up as a societal benefit that there would be individuals behind the wheel stoned and that it is safer than their drunk counterparts. That is not the sort of argument that is really going to cause a major shift in thinking for those blinded by the propaganda.

Now of course this is just one avenue. If decriminalization were to occur wouldn't it seem likely people would combine the already legal alcohol with the newly legal marijuana? Then get into a car and drive? Would that really make it any safer for you or I to drive?

With all of the above I hope you are able to see through my inexperience in the forum and understand where I am coming from. I simply think there are better routes of discussion for legalization and would hope that though a stoned driver may be a more cautious driver than a drunk driver that those in favor of changing the laws would see the value of driving sober regardless of the current or future legislation.

Thank you making me a more conscious blogger and for the good conversation.

[Asgaya Dihi]

19. Welcome to DU

Sorry if I in any way contributed to a rough introduction, I went through the same thing when I was new here and it took a bit of time to adjust. Still am adjusting in ways I'd guess since I go through periods where the rest of the board disappoints me too much so I stick to mostly posting and reading in this forum until that passes.

Overall your approach is great and I don't see a problem with it. We've just had a rough time with drug warriors occasionally trying to play the driving while high angle up so we're kinda sensitive about the idea that they are the same. In their argument if we legalize or decriminalize pot we'd have skyrocketing accident rates but as far as I can see the facts don't support that argument for a number of reasons. It's hard sometimes but we've got to find a line somewhere between "pot is harmless" and "it's as bad as alcohol", preferably somewhere we can source and prove or at least make a good logical argument for.

You might be interested in a group called LEAP. It's a group of law enforcement who argues against prohibition with much the same style you talk about. They have a large number of members and speakers these days, most of which I don't know personally, but I have talked with Peter Christ and a couple of others enough to get the impression that you'd probably like his style. Take a bit of time to listen to him if you get the time, he's got a hard noised attitude about how and why we need to change and there's nothing of a dreamer in his approach. You can listen to or watch presentations from him and other speakers at the following link.

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=AV

[tavalon]

4. Does our government still play both sides of the war?

Then there is no reason for it to be over, now is there?

[groovedaddy]

9. A perfect tool for Fascists...early on, they used this "war"

to carve out a nice slice from the 4th amendment. I believe it was Blackmon who was heard shouting from judicial chambers - "you've just gutted the 4th amendment!"
Alas, it was not a complete "gutting," because they're still after it!

[killbotfactory]

11. It has expanded state power, fed the prison industy, and thrown tons of mostly poor people in jail

as well as disenfranchising many more. I'm pretty sure it was designed to do that, so technically it's not a failure.

[droidamus2]

12. Two problems

Two problems you have with trying to end the so called 'drug war'. First it is hard to get the public behind you after years of government propaganda have convinced them that the only way to 'fight drugs' is criminal prosecution. When your opponent is willing and able to lie with government backing it makes it exceedingly difficult to convince the public that there is a better way to attack the problem. The second I think maybe the bigger problem is that there is a whole set of industries and a large number of jobs built around prohibition. The most obvious is the number of police jobs from the federal down to the local that are dependent on the 'drug war'. As an aside all those locations that have laws that allow them to confiscate money and property from 'drug dealers' are going to do anything they can to keep drug prohibition going. Other industries include drug testing, drug re-hab and anti-drug 'public interest' groups and all the prison/jail jobs created.

Drug use and addiction are medical problems and should not be legal problems but convincing the public of that will be difficult. If you haven't had experience with the 'illegal' drug business and usage it may be difficult for you to understand what is really going on. Many people have never had any experience in this area so they believe whatever the DEA and the rest of the government tells them. Some have only experienced it in that somebody in their life has had a big problem with one drug or another so they are very willing to buy into the 'put them all in jail' idea. If you remove the marijuana users from the 'drug epidemic' numbers the number of users drops considerably so the propagandists need to keep it illegal to bolster the idea that this is a huge problem instead of the size of problem it is. The fact is that the vast majority of people who try drugs do not become addicted to them and most of them eventually quit doing them or reduce their usage to just occasionally doing their drug of choice. As an example I have a fairly extensive drug use history including everything from pot, hash, LSD, shrooms, coke, speed, etc. but I no longer consume any of these. No rehab no jail time no coercion of any kind just decided I had had enough of it and quit. The drug warriors don't want people to hear stories like this because it blows holes in the fear tactics. Do I support people doing drugs to tell you the truth I don't know. It may not be the best decision you ever make especially if you tend toward addictive behavior to begin with but on the other hand I don't think you should end up in jail with a record just because you consumed some so called illegal substance. Well enough of a rant that's my view and I'm sticking to it.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

15. Exactly, you're not an addict.

I am an addict, and alcohol and marijuana were my main "drugs of choice."

That being said, alcohol causes far more harm in terms of accidents, violence and belligerence than marijuana does. I think the most important thing to do is point out open hypocrisy, for example, when you see the same person getting drunk who, earlier in the day, applauded a pot bust by the cops.

I like to put hypocrites in the spotlight because it makes them uncomfortable. Make sure there's no risk of violent reprisal before doing so.

[duhneece]

20. I"m seeing progress!

In my very conservative county in southern New Mexico, we are having public forums and finding people willing to speak up (a Libertarian physician, members of the Progressive Democrats) and our non-profit Peace and Justice of La Luz http://pajoll.org WILL have a booth at our county fair next summer. LEAP Law Enforcement Against Prohibition have been a great resource; the Drug Policy Alliance has been an awesome resource.
The time seems right, the time seems ripe. We'll see.
First, elect Democrats!

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

21. Massachusetts ballot initiative seeks to eliminate jail for possession

They are planning to do what other states like California, Nevada and Oregon have done, eliminating all jail sentences for simple marijuana possession. If passed the penalty will be reduced to a $100 citation. And it looks like it will be difficult for this measure to fail.