vertigo wrote:Tmaq wrote:vertigo wrote:The arguments are similar but not the contexts in which one would want to argue them. A slave may not tell his master that he has no right to own him. That argument is pointless. But a very similar argument, that beating him reduces his throughput, can be much more fruitful.
The state did not 'win,' Vertigo.
The proper discussion is about
1) The benefits of prohibition
2) The costs
The benefit....is zero; kids can buy pot easier than they can buy cigarettes or beer.
The costs are outrageous and pervasive, mostly falling upon complete innocents like kids killed in the drug-crime wars (such criminalization is a direct, predictable, common, and usual result of prohibition per se, as a brief historical survey immediately proves, and as theory predicts; once its illegal to be in that industry at all, there is nothing to stop the most ruthless from running the show, a dynamic first described by the babylonians.)
Now, explain why you think high, arbitrary, violent and immoral costs should be paid in order to earn zero benefits, or admit you are sold; prohibition is a mistake.
Read my previous post and extrapolate from it that actually, prohibition has two main benefits:
- a more healthy populace
That is absolutely false, as even a cursory review of the evidence proves instantly.
CF, above, about how prohibition doesn't actually stop people from using, on the one hand.
On the other hand, there is a vast tax-burden required to operate it (and impoverishment does cause more deaths - the opposite of 'more healthy') and outrageous amounts of corollary damage (getting shot also doesn't qualify as 'more healthy') which you've left out of your calculation.
Some individuals, perhaps, will be more healthy, but the vast and undeniably far larger decrease in so many other people's health overwhelms the effect by several orders of magnitude, absolutely ruining your ability to claim that 'the population' in the abstract is generally more healthy as a result of prohibition.
- an alternative to more violent forms of crime for criminals to pursue
What? Criminality isn't genetic - the issue is the incentives, and prohibition creates all sorts of incentives for criminal and immoral behavior, including in law enforcement. Those kinds of side-effects are part of the vast and immoral cost of prohibition.
And if you are in doubt, live in Johannesburg for a while and then tell me that violent career criminals are a smaller price to pay.
"Violent career criminals" would have a vastly foreshortened 'career' without prohibition, which is again, the point about criminality being a behavioral, not genetic, issue.
If you had something more specific in mind that supported your erroneous view, you should have described it.