There are no indication that prohibition drives the demand up. Places that have legalized have seen an increase in usage.
There were good things that came out of alcohol prohibition. They included admissions to hospitals and mental hospitals dropping dramatically, church attendance reaching all time highs, etc. The period was known as the "roaring 20's" economically.
But the bottom line is, you have to draw a line somewhere. Are you going to let LSD and heroine and other super addicting drugs out on the free market where pushers can get people hooked? No. Most libertarians will admit that you can't let all things out on the market. So now we have a line and the question is where do you draw it. Do you draw it after alcohol but before pot where it is now or do you shift it.
Lets approach this in order that you presented your statements. To the first statement, that prohibition doesn't drive demand up, may I offer this from the CATO institutite. People drank MORE during Prohibition than every before. Just like High School, drinking was 'the fun thing' to do. Forbidden fruit and all that. It's just human nature to want to do what you are forbidden to do.
It should be noted that annual per capita consumption and the percentage of annual per capita income spent on alcohol had been steadily falling before Prohibition and that annual spending on alcohol during Prohibition was greater than it had been before Prohibition.[4] Alcohol Probition: Alcohol Consumption
To your second point, that places that have legalized drug use have seen increased usage. And this is a surprize? Given a choice of smoking pot (hashish, LSD, cocaine, ect.) at place 'A' and going to jail, paying inflated prices, and having the product cut with plaster of paris, baby formula, confectioner's sugar, or only God knows what. Or one could go to place 'B' with no risk of jail, reasonable prices and garanteed quality. If you shoot powdered concrete into your veins, chances are that the cutting agent will do MORE damage to your organs than the drug alone.
Drugs have been with mankind for centuries. Prohibition creates even more potent drugs, which increase the 'bang' for the buck. Examples are Everclear and other 'mixers'. In the WoD, we now have Crack and a host of new 'designer' drugs; that would likely never have come into creation if it were not for Prohibition. Because some percentage of 'product' is caught, the dealers are investing millions in making more potent and addictive drugs, that are far more condensed and easy to transport. Why ship 50 tons of Pot on a cargo ship, when I can ship the same profit line in the back of a pickup?
I see no reason for the federal government to be involved in the issue.
The states should be allowed to draw the line where they please.
What you don't seem to realize is.....when prohibition was ended people could now purchase safe, regulated, taxed, quality controlled alcoholic products. The criminal element was driven out and the habit was controlled legally.
I have never taken illegal drugs or had the desire to do so..but if I were to do so....I would want to make my purchase legally at Sav-On instead of relying on the quality control of the Bloods or the Crips! I would also appreciate the drop in crime necessary to sustain an illegal drug habit. If folks can buy their stuff at the drug store at resonable prices they won't have to break and enter to steal "your" stuff to get "their" stuff.
An earliar post mentioned the dismal record of the "War on Drugs" and the attendant restrictions of liberty it has caused. It reminds me of the "War on Poverty" and the huge successes we have seen in that area. You know....we ought to start a government program called the "War on Food" to insure no one ever goes hungry again. It is human nature to find a way to fill a market....and if that market is illegal the prices will be high. If drugs are legal your pusher is now out of business.
LSD is not a "super addicting" drug, or anything similar. Perhaps the correct role for the Feds is to control sugar, fat and caffeine intake. We could establish an agency.
B"ut the bottom line is, you have to draw a line somewhere. Are you going to let LSD and heroine and other super addicting drugs out on the free market where pushers can get people hooked?"
The stuff is already freely availble given 20 years of WOD. How do you explain that?
Drugs are (somewhat unlike alcohol) a kind of self-increasing demand. You need more and more and more to get the high. So even if they are legalized, you'll still have an ever-increasing demand, and as long as demand increases, supply will increase also. Besides, once government legalizes drugs, they will be seen as just another opportunity to create a tax. (Notice that just about the only thing they don't tax is abortion -- if you did, there might be fewer of them.) So the price will keep going up, too. Now, if the demand is increasing and the price is being kept high, the crime that is associated with the habit will continue or increase. Libertarians say we should punish the associated crime, not the drug use, and they do have a point. But if we know that drugs breed crime, then isn't the policy of keeping them illegal a crime-prevention measure? But I do agree that some people's civil rights have been trampled on in the War on Drugs. There must be a better way...