One
only has to look at what happened in the US after they tried to ban
the sale of alcohol. Increased crime, deaths and corruption.
The reason for that was of course an increases in profits for those
willing to break the law and protect themselves violently. Also
remember that the possession and home production for own use of
alcohol was never a crime!
Failing to learn from
that, most countries introduces bans on not only the commercial
production and supply of certain substances but also in many cases
the possession even in small amounts. Interesting that the
cultivation of hemp even with very very low amounts of psychoactive
compounds such as THC was also banned - in the UK it is still an
offense to grow even one hemp plant at home - suggesting that the
prohibition was not only an illogical attempt to stop people taking
certain psychoactive substances but was also based on other motives.
Talking first about hemp: the ban certainly enabled large-scale investors in some industries to make greater profits through the production of synthetic and other alternatives. Hemp had been used for many hundreds of years for the production of many essentials from paper to clothing, sails to ropes, artists materials to foodstuffs, building materials to fuels, and medicine. These were replaced by the likes of wood-pulp papers, cotton and nylon, polyurethane and plastics, unhealthy fast foods, fossil and nuclear fuels, and pharmaceutical drugs. None of the natural hemp products were in themselves dangerous and most were environmentally friendly in their production and destruction. Also most could be handled locally. None of those natural products could be used to "get high".
Now let's look at the
potential risks from consumption of substances ("recreational
use") where possession is banned, compared with other substances
where possession by adults is allowed.
Some years ago the
American Medical Association produced a chart comparing the potential
for addition and toxicity of various substances deemed "legal"
or "illegal". Note here that it is the production,
possession, supply that comes under prohibition law, that is the
human involvement, not the substances themselves that are listed in
the legislation. Note also that some people are licensed to
possess, supply or produce those substances that is banned for most
of us - such as scientists conduction research, police, forensic
scientists and court officials or other such as teachers in the
course of their duty, employment or occupations.
This was
how the AMA compared the substances
Tobacco alongside heroin, highly addictive, highly toxic.
Alcohol alongside cocaine, quite addictive and quite toxic
Caffeine alongside
amphetamines, potentially addictive, can be toxic
Ecstasy
- low lever of potential for addiction or lethal overdose
LSD
- very low potential for addiction and non-toxic
Cannabis
- no potential for physical addition and non-toxic.
NOTE:
in consideration of
addiction, they looked at problems such as withdrawal symptoms;
This has little to do with an individual's desire to repeat a
pleasant experience and did not take into account any increases in
likelihood of addition due to genetic predisposition or environmental
factors such as social connections.
in consideration of
toxicity, they looked at the number of "normal does"
required to be taken at once likely to cause death.
Now
let's look a the social costs of prohibition, billions of
pounds of taxpayers money spent annually; criminalisation of often
otherwise law-abiding citizens; alienation of youth, health problems
due to uncertain strength and purity; availability to young people
(often at the schools and colleges and at home from older siblings,
as well as unscrupulous profiteering street dealers); financing of
criminal gangs and maybe even terrorists; boosting money-raising
crimes such as burglary, theft, muggings, shop-lifting, small-scale
dealing, cutting the drugs to boost profits and prostitution.
If
those substances were sold through controllable outlets such as
cannabis cafes ("Coffeeshops" such as in Holland), Private
Member Cannabis Clubs (such as in Spain) or Pharmacies and
Off-Licenses, where quality control and dosage could be measured and
sales limited to adults, although it could reduce the price of some
drugs it would bring a decrease in fund-raising crime, decrease in
problematic use (more noticeable and more likely that the user would
consult a doctor without fear of arrest), decrease in the
number of deaths through overdose (the strengths and dosage could be
controlled), increase in revenue through taxation, decreases in costs
of enforcement, court cases and imprisonment, overall better health
and safety at point of sale, dis-empowerment of drug gangs,
improvement in social environment and less alienation of users of
some drugs compared with users of other drugs.
After all, few people, in
the UK at least, object to anyone drinking moderately at home or down
the pub, so long as they do no harm to others, so why should anyone
object to anyone smoking a few joints of hash pipes or even taking
other substances in the same situations?
My conclusion,
for many years now, is that prohibition has little to do with
protecting people from harm, and a lot more about controlling
people's choices and money!
Please let me know in the
comments whether or not you agree.
