Outlaw Tobacco and Cigarettes?

[Bishop]

Why? The two aren't the same product.

[scorpio86]

Because they are both created from natural plants.

If governments think its okay to sell their people highly addictive and poisonous tobacco, why not sell their people non addictive and highly enjoyable marijuana. I just think it is a double standard.

But i suppose it is 'besides the point' as i can buy both anyway :-) I am trying to quit tobacco though...

[Bishop]

Of course its a double standard - its government, what did you expect?

[scorpio86]

:-) That is true

[Twyla]

So far as I'm concerned, the Anti-Smoking Nazis and so-called 'War on Drugs' are absolute proof of one simple fact - the government failed to learn one damned thing from Prohibition. Though the following comes from an essay of mine concerning the 'War on Drugs', the same applies to smoking.



Anyone who bothers to actually look at the cold hard facts of the matter can see how deep these atrocities run. For starters, a great many ?recreational drugs? were made illegal strictly due to racial prejudices. Cocaine was made illegal because it ?makes black men rape white women?. Heroin because of racial biases against the Asian immigrants in the various ?China Towns? ? despite how heavily American expansion and industry was dependent upon their labors. Marijuana was made illegal due to it?s links with Hispanic immigration and ? more importantly ? its notable use by groups who opposed the ?war? in Vietnam.

And isn?t it an interesting ?coincidence? that virtually all of the propaganda and legislation against these substances rather conveniently served to distract the American Public from far blacker goings-on being perpetrated by politicians in higher positions of trust within our Government?

But let?s back up for a moment and look at the simple economics?

Anyone who knows diddly about economics understands the simple principle of the Law of Supply and Demand. For those unfamiliar with this principle, it essentially equates to Price = Demand / Supply. Not a precise formula, but it represents the forces involved in the principle and how they affect the economy. A common example most are familiar with is the price of gasoline:

More people and more cars means greater Demand. Diminishing reserves and more dependency on foreign sources decreases the Supply. Either of these by themselves would lead to gas prices increasing considerably ? combined, they have cause the average price of a gallon of gasoline to rise from $0.29 to $4.29 (nearly 1500%) in my lifetime alone.

Now look at alcohol during Prohibition:

By making alcohol illegal, drinking (Demand) actually increased ? thanks in large part to the ?taboo factor?. Being driven underground (courtesy of speak-easies) decreased the ready Supply. As a result, the average price for alcoholic beverages increased tremendously. Exact figures are elusive, but various sources report averages ranging from 500% to 1200% relative to prices prior to Prohibition. When the economic crises of the Great Depression are also factored into the equation, this is akin to a ?dollar shot? going for as much as $30.

• Thousands of businesses involved with the legitimate manufacture, transport, and sale of alcoholic beverages were forced to close (or become criminals), causing MILLIONS of honest, hard-working (and tax-paying) Americans to become unemployed through no fault of their own ? strongly contributing towards the combined devastation of the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression as a whole.
• Predictions by the ?Moral Majority?, such as ?The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent.? by Reverend Billy Sunday, proved to be as far from fact as possible.
• By driving alcohol production underground, countless patrons unknowingly consumed vicious toxins due to the lack of regulation and quality control. Less-scrupulous establishments would cut their meager supplies of alcohol with anything from water to embalming fluid (or worse).
• The increased revenues from alcohol being illegal turned small-time thugs into fabulously-wealthy crime lords with their own private armies. ?Turf wars? between these gangs caught countless innocent Americans in the cross-fire, ending so many innocent young lives that a majority of their deaths were ?swept under the rug? by authorities to try to keep the Public unaware of how much a failure Prohibition was.

And lest we forget? Despite YEARS of investigation, authorities couldn?t manage to link Al Capone with bootlegging, gambling, prostitution, the countless murders carried out upon his orders, or any other criminal acts. The ONLY thing they could prove him guilty of was cheating on his income taxes. Even then, all his imprisonment accomplished was granting him additional security from his competition ? he continued to run his operations from inside his custom-decorated cell.

Despite drastic increases to police funding during Prohibition:

• Arrests for Public Intoxication and Disturbing the Peace INCREASED by more than 40%
• Arrests for Driving while Intoxicated INCREASED by more than 80%
• Alcohol use among American youths INCREASED by at least 300%
• Prison populations INCREASED from 400% to 600%, depending on the vicinity
• Federal expenditures for penal institutions INCREASED by more than 1000%

And these figures are only the people who actually got caught. Even without this ridiculous ?War on Drugs?, the public has still yet to recover from the atrocities created by Prohibition.

The ?War on Drugs?, like it?s kissing-cousin of Prohibition, does absolutely nothing to curtail the use of ?recreational substances?. If anything ? in a Nation founded on personal liberty, freedom, and self-determination ? it actually promotes the use of recreational drugs. Most of us drive a little faster than the speed limit (as well as go to tremendous lengths to try to weasel out of a ticket when caught), fudge our tax returns, or do something similar for the sheer thrill of ?getting away with something?. Kids don?t smoke and drink because they ?enjoy a cigarette? or because they?re wine connoisseurs ? they do it because it?s ?cool? to do something they?re not supposed to.

Take a gander at other cultures and societies which lack many of our taboos. In nearly all cases, youth experimentation is virtually non-existent where the ?taboo factor? is minimal (if it exists at all). Amsterdam is notorious for its coffee houses, yet it also enjoys what is probably the lowest marijuana use in the world among the youth. Alcoholism and alcohol-related illnesses are practically unheard of in societies where children are introduced to alcohol and taught to respect it by responsible parents ? as compared to the American tradition of going out with friends to get completely smashed (and more likely addicted) on their 21st birthday.

The more ?forbidden? we make recreational drugs, the more alluring we make them. That?s simple, irrefutable fact ? regardless of your personal views on the matter. The ?Great Experiment? of Prohibition proved it. By legalizing these substances across the board, we remove this allure ? as also proven by the repeal of Prohibition, which led to a nationwide DECREASE in alcohol use. Statistics vary widely, both regionally and by sources, but reductions of 10% to 15% are a fair approximation of the radically varying accounts. Not quite as low as it was prior to Prohibition, though one has to factor in the huge number of addictions caused by Prohibition.

So, as already proven by Prohibition, legalization decreases Demand in addition to increasing Supply.

Let?s look at the Law of Supply and Demand again? Demand decreases and the Price goes down. Supply increases and the Price goes down.

Those who are addicted to (or otherwise elect to continue to use) these recreational substances will spend a great deal less in doing so. Not only does this leave more money to be spent on other goods (helping our shaky economy), but it also eliminates a great number of crimes committed to fund their habit. Over 30% of all inmates are imprisoned for possessing, manufacturing, or trafficking drugs and nearly 20% of all inmates are there for crimes committed to support drug habits. More than HALF our prison populations are there almost exclusively due to drugs being illegal.

While many are quick to criticize marijuana as a ?gateway drug?, few are aware how incarcerating a college student for drugs is a gateway to worse crimes later in life. Not only does this disrupt their in-progress education, it also all but eliminates any chance they will ever again have the opportunity to better themselves through education due to a felony record. Furthermore, they?re imprisoned alongside rapists, murderers, and other hardened criminals ? promoting a more casual attitude towards these truly heinous crimes. After all, if the authorities deem a ?victimless crime? like smoking weed to be on par with violent crimes, who are they to judge? Not to mention that this former student will have to become as hard (and violent) as their fellow inmates ? taught to do so through being abused and victimized while incarcerated ? to merely survive the duration of their sentence.

These factors combine to the simple fact that an overwhelming majority of people imprisoned for drugs ? most commonly for simple use and/or possession ? later commit far more serious crimes due to the scarring by the experience which makes them unable to resume a normal place in society.

Some may be quick to point out how many people abuse and overdose on legitimate pharmaceuticals, but they overlook the simple facts that; A ) they can?t be arrested for possessing them (for the most part), and B ) these are more readily available (and often cheaper) than the ?illegal? drugs. With ?recreational substances? legalized across the board, there is far less incentive to indulge in these ?legal? and more dangerous alternatives.

But back to the economic factors?

With all recreational drugs legalized, their value (aka Price) plummets. The majority of hard ?designer? drugs ? the ones which are far more dangerous both for their potency and their street value ? will all but disappear due to the simple economic fact they they will no longer be profitable. Designer drugs are difficult and expensive to manufacture ? just ask the pharmaceutical companies. What?s the point in expending so much money and effort to make something they can?t make a profit on?

With many (if not all) the designer drugs out of the equation, most of what remains are the ?classic? drugs which have been around since the dawn of civilization ? marijuana, heroin, cocaine, opium, etc ? all of which have a long history of proven medicinal value.

Marijuana, for example, readily flourishes in terrain that few other crops could grow in. The remains from these crops have historically been used to make canvas, paper, and many other textile products, as well as both medicinal and industrial uses for the oils.

As-is, hundreds of billions of US dollars go to terrorist organizations and third-world drug lords. In addition to depriving these forces of funding and keeping this money in Our own economy, legalization would create countless jobs in the legitimate growing, processing, and distribution of these substances. Add to this the revenue generated through regulation and taxation, as well as eliminating the billions spent on pointless enforcement, and the Federal Budget gains more than it spends on Education, Transportation, and SSI combined. More money will be kept and generated within the US economy as a whole than the Government spends on the whole of the US Armed Forces.

And this doesn?t even factor in the expenses of both time and money that would no longer be spent on local levels in arresting, jailing, and tying up the courts and probationary systems, as well as those imprisoned for drug-related crimes as trivial as simple possession.

There are a great many arguments against such legalization, moral and legitimate, and I will readily admit that most of them are completely valid. However, three simple and indisputable facts trump all of these combined:

1. We live in a Nation founded on personal freedoms and self-determination. Prohibition proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that no amount of deterrence will ever sway people from partaking of their intoxicant of choice. Worse, it does more to promote use than deter it.
2. So long as they remain illegal, they will continue to command high prices (again proven by Prohibition) ? and all those hundreds of billions of dollars will continue to leave the US economy to fund terrorists and truly criminal drug lords.
3. In these trying economic times, we need to take full advantage of any potential resource we can. The ?War on Drugs? causes far greater harm than good on a multitude of fronts, and the expenditures for this fruitless crusade ? in addition to the revenues generated through legalization ? can be put to far better use elsewhere.

In summary ? The ?War on Drugs? always has been, and always will be, as effective as a ?War on Gravity?; and studying the mating habits of African butterflies would be a far less wasteful investment.

[scorpio86]

Write a novel why don't ya lol!

This will be considered TLDR by 99% of humans in this Forum. TLDR - Too long didn't read.

I see you still haven't got your keyboard sorted out golfer? ? - '

I read your post and although i don't see how outlawing heroin can be 'racist' i also can't spot tobacco anywhere. I understand your point about governments creating issues for their own benefit despite the fact that they are effecting the lives of a great number of people.

I bet it is an interesting essay, i hope you wrote it free hand. No offence!

[Twyla]

Write a novel why don't ya lol!

This will be considered TLDR by 99% of humans in this Forum. TLDR - To long didn't read.

The practical upshot is that trying to outlaw any form of recreational substance only creates far more problems than it solves.

People are gonna do what they want to do and making something illegal does far more to encourage something than discourage it. The economic law of Supply and Demand just makes it more expensive, with the increased cash flow only supporting the criminals. Making something illegal removes any form of regulation or quality control, adding substances far more dangerous than what's being outlawed.

Outlawing stuff is a lose-lose situation for everyone - cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, or anything else that's a mainstay.

And no offense taken.

[scorpio86]

Well said Tywla.

[nooblet]

Punishing smokers with the same draconian laws as other druggies? Take a serious look at the drug war.
Unlike most of those drugs, tobacco causes few mental calamities, the way alcohol or marijuana can.
The way things are going it's going to be taxed out of relevance, and a better way - the way that's being implemented - is propaganda to discourage smoking, rather than going through the trouble of criminalizing a widespread drug. Of course it will never happen because tobacco companies have too much influence to let that occur.

[nooblet]

I should add that, despite common belief, prohibition did decrease the alcohol consumption of Americans substantially - so much that it has never been as high since as it was per capita as it was before Prohibition was enacted.

Outlawing alcohol is problematic also due to the ease with which it can be manufactured, and the widespread cultural acceptance of drinking. Personally I would be glad if alcohol consumption was suppressed by public campaigning nearly as much as tobacco is, because it's damage is far worse psychologically and socially. That said I am quite the hypocrite, being an occasional drinker and regular tobacco smoker, so... meh.

[Hurlin]

May be George Orwell got the date wrong and it should be 2084 ?

[Kemia]

I should add that, despite common belief, prohibition did decrease the alcohol consumption of Americans substantially - so much that it has never been as high since as it was per capita as it was before Prohibition was enacted.

Outlawing alcohol is problematic also due to the ease with which it can be manufactured, and the widespread cultural acceptance of drinking. Personally I would be glad if alcohol consumption was suppressed by public campaigning nearly as much as tobacco is, because it's damage is far worse psychologically and socially. That said I am quite the hypocrite, being an occasional drinker and regular tobacco smoker, so... meh.

Hypocracy is a part of the human life ;)

[Azartyn]

Since you seem to believe cause few people did survive to a old age with even smoking its okey and not harmful to smoke (thats what was person i quoted believed still) So I was seeing if your way of thinking applied to everything that one person (well two in this case) survives is okey.

Yeah well the same way you text and drive or talk on the cell phone and drive bothers the hell outta me...Its your choice, even though I think you should pay double the car insurance but you dont, do you? Stop whining about how other people choose to live THEIR lives. You aren't living it or paying for it so what do you care?

[nooblet]

Yeah well the same way you text and drive or talk on the cell phone and drive bothers the hell outta me...Its your choice, even though I think you should pay double the car insurance but you dont, do you? Stop whining about how other people choose to live THEIR lives. You aren't living it or paying for it so what do you care?

Except that:
(a) People do have to shoulder the costs of health care for people other than themselves, even in the US. Do you really know how much the government subsidizes health care - most of which is used to prop up private health care providers by the way?
(a2) Even in a hypercapitalist economy, people are not islands unto themselves. What people do does have an effect on everyone else.
(b) It may be a smoker's choice and opinion, but people are not entitled to their own facts and try to claim that tobacco smoking is completely harmless. That is just magical thinking.

I am of the opinion that no drugs should be criminalized, and that if the societal costs of tobacco smoking were so extreme, it would have been banned long ago and resistance from the tobacco industry would be bought off.

[Korp]

Yeah well the same way you text and drive or talk on the cell phone and drive bothers the hell outta me...Its your choice, even though I think you should pay double the car insurance but you dont, do you? Stop whining about how other people choose to live THEIR lives. You aren't living it or paying for it so what do you care?

I dont text and drive nor do I talk in the phone when I drive, actually I dont drive at all. I actually do hope people that do that crashes and dies, or people who drive too fast in the city or people who act reckless in the car. But I do pay for people that get sick cause they have smoked, I do pay for all the people that suffers second hand smoking and get sick, its called taxes as we have a quite superb healthcare system here. Besides, smoking doesnt end up just being harmfult to the smoker but people around the smoker who has to endure the person smoking.