Replies

OMG I just got what you were saying. Are you serious? Do you really think that Prohibition failed because it didn't go far enough?

Is that what I said? You quoted me, then ignored the quote. Perhaps reading comprehension is not one of your strengths. Were you high? I said: "Prohibition was doomed to fail from the start." See? Then I said "They take a substance that had been legal and widely used legally since the dawn of time" See? It's very hard to effectively "prohibit" something that has always been legal and for the most part, socially acceptable. Then I said "try a "Prohibition" but don't prohibit its use." See? When you ADD that fact to the aforementioned ones, it is extremely easy to see why "Prohibition" failed. Add to the fact that it wasn't even enforced with rare exceptions, and it becomes a "no brainer".

Since mere posession of illegal drugs today is a crime, nevermind consumption, has that made today's prohibition more successful?

Obviously if possession and use of a substance is illegal it's going to be easier to prohibit it and enforce than if neither possession or use is illegal. This would be the epitome of common sense.

thanks for the clarification, i didn't think a FReeper could really be that obtuse!

i am greatly relieved.

of course, the exact same reasoning applies to any prohibition, since by definition all prohibitions are about making some illegal that was previously legal.

so i'm glad that we agree: all prohibitions are doomed to failure.

the question then becomes: does the prohibition do more harm than good? i think the answer is clearly "yes"...