Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Prohibition II - a.k.a. "The War on Drugs"
Source:
The Complete Newspeak Dictionary
URL Source: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-prohibition.html
Published: Feb 1, 2001
Author: C. S.
Post Date: 2015-05-24 05:04:20 by A Pole
Keywords: drugs, constitution, liberty
Views: 2842
Comments: 10
Prohibition, The War on Drugs -- Call it whatever you like. Both terms may be used interchangeably. Yet for some reason, most Americans fail to see the correlation. To most, the term prohibition refers only to the prohibition of alcohol back in the 1920s. Many see prohibition as a noble, yet failed experiment. Yet, these same people see the War on Drugs as something completely different. It isn't prohibition at all. "Of course drugs are illegal ... They have always been illegal, haven't they? ... Wasn't it one of the Ten Commandments?.. Thou shall not lie, steal, kill, or worship at the golden bong." Somehow, the idea that drugs have always been illegal has implanted itself firmly into the collective conscious. But we all need to take a closer look at the history surrounding prohibition. Prohibition and the War on Drugs are the exact same thing -- An attempt to control man's appetite for sin through legislation. They are merely two different faces of the same creature - the temperance movement of the 1800s. And although America thought it finally beat this monster back in the 1930s with the 21st amendment, the truth is that the war was just beginning. The fact that most people don't see the relation between the war on drugs and prohibition is perhaps one of the greatest marketing feats of the 20th century. They are the exact same thing... A small group of people believes that an activity is dangerous. -- They try to convince people to stop partaking in that activity. -- The people ignore them. -- They convince the government to pass a law to abolish the activity. -- The people ignore the law. -- The people become criminals. -- The people go to jail -- People begin profiting by providing the illegal service to other people -- People kill each other to protect their profits. -- More people go to jail. -- People begin asking government to rethink its policy. At this point, a public debate takes place. Is the prohibition really working? The prohibitionist would argue that the ill-effects of alcohol and drugs are so overwhelmingly obvious, that no sane human being should even want to use drugs at all. Yet, given the fact that people are still using these horrible substances, it would seem that some people are still not convinced. Therefore, it is necessary to up the ante, and add the ill effects of prison time and asset-forfeiture to the equation. But the question is, "Does it work?" Did alcohol prohibition work back in the 1920s? Did it succeed in its primary goal - eliminating "demon alcohol"? It is true that alcohol consumption dropped considerably shortly after prohibition took effect. But, this was only a temporary condition caused by the disruption in the supply of alcohol. Almost immediately after the legal breweries and saloons were closed down, speakeasies began sprouting up to take their place. It took a few years for the black market to get going, but as soon as it did, alcohol consumption nearly returned back to normal. It is difficult to get exact figures on alcohol consumption from the 1920s since, after all, it was an underground activity. Some guesses show that in the waning years of prohibition alcohol consumption was at around 60-70% of pre-prohibition levels - other people argue that there was actually an increase. The only "official" figures I have found show that alcohol consumption in 1934 (the year after prohibition) was 50% of the level in 1919 (the year before). But even this number is somewhat suspect since a few state and counties held onto prohibition for a few years after the repeal of the 18th amendment - So, it is probably safe to assume that they had a sizable black market as well. In any case, the numbers show that prohibition fell well short of achieving its primary objective - the total elimination of alcohol. But alcohol prohibition was about more than simply getting rid of booze. Alcohol Prohibition was supposed to be a national cure-all. People bought into the idea of prohibition because it really was going to solve all of our country's problems. -- It was going to reduce crime by eliminating the drunkard. -- Reduce the tax burden caused by putting those drunks in jail. -- Eliminate poorhouses by sobering-up the poor. -- Improve public hygiene. -- Lower death rates... all in all, it was going to do everything but mow your lawn and shine your shoes. Once the stench of alcohol had been removed from the face of our nation, life would be just grand. But as we all know, it fell short of achieving these goals as well. And in general, it only made things worse. It is extremely difficult to find any accurate figures on crime for this time period. Before prohibition, there really wasn't any sort of "national" law enforcement, and therefore there really wasn't any "standard" method of reporting and indexing crime rates. Most of the statistics of crime rates covering the period of 1900-1950 are combinations of data taken from several different sources, with estimates of crime in the early part of the century coming from an inconsistent approximation of "local" crime figures, and mid-century estimates coming from standardized "federal" statistics. There is also a little bit of grey area on either side of the "official" prohibition years since there were many "dry" counties and states in the years before federal prohibition started, and a several of them hung on a few years after prohibition ended. (Mississippi remained "dry" until 1966, and there are still some dry counties to this day). But despite these difficulties, we are still able to see a general trend toward more crime during prohibition, and a sharp decline in the post-prohibition years. But I should point out that statement isn't entirely correct. It is true that the level of minor crimes (such as public indecency, vagrancy, and other minor disturbances) did see some decline during the prohibition years. So it appears that prohibition was successful at dissuading drunks from staggering down the street singing "Sweet Molly Malone" with their pants around their ankles, since they knew that public displays of intoxication could get them 6 Months in prison. (They just did it indoors instead) But I think what is more important is that the occurrence of more serious crimes (homicides, burglaries) jumped 24 percent in 1921 alone - the year after prohibition took effect. Throughout the 1920s, crime and corruption continued to rise to unprecedented levels - and most of this crime could be linked directly to the underworld that prohibition spawned. Of course, this is not to say that prohibition created organized crime. The Mafia, of course, existed prior to 1920. They were already in the business of providing other prohibited services to the general public, namely gambling and prostitution. But what prohibition did do was hand the Mafia a new market - allowing organized crime to become filthy stinking rich! When the government decided to add alcohol to the list of taboos, organized crime was more than happy to make this prohibited substance available to the public. And why shouldn't they? There were tons of money to be made. In the pre-prohibition years, organized crime had been confined to brothels and bookie's basements. But now, thanks to prohibition, they were everywhere - in every neighborhood - on every block. By 1925, there were over 100,000 speakeasies in New York alone. If you wanted a drink, you could easily get it. The public had no problem at all obtaining alcohol. In fact, there were so many criminals in the alcohol business that gangsters had a really hard time holding on to their territories. Gang warfare became rampant, and murder rates in large cites like Chicago and New York nearly doubled as a result. Prohibition was impossible to enforce. But the primary obstacle for law enforcement was not organized crime -- It wasn't all the corrupt policeman & judges, or the high-ranking officials on the mob's payroll. It was the one simple fact that most people simply didn't care. Prohibition, for the most part, was treated as a non-law. People didn't go out of their way to help bring bootleggers to "justice", because after all, a lot of people were enjoying their services. The local police weren't much help either. Although some were persuaded to look the other way by way of bribes and blackmail, many others were opposed to prohibition for the same reasons as the general public - they wanted to indulge in the occasionally drink as well. The police grew tired of being shot at by gangsters. The public grew tired of the gangland shoot-outs, the endless raids, and most importantly - their loss of freedom. A lot of people took issue with the fact decent people were being put behind bars away simply for having a drink. What kind of person wants to lock up "Granny" for simply stillin' up some "medicine"? And of course, nobody wanted to get locked-up themselves. In the end, it was all boiled down to a case of supply and demand. The people demanded a drink -- So other people found ways to supply it. Alcohol was smuggled into the United States from all over the world. The Feds made futile efforts to patrol America's borders to keep the stuff from getting in the country, but with over 18,000 miles of coastline to protect, they met with little success. Barely 5% of smuggled liquor was stopped by the Feds. And in the end, it didn't matter. Whatever couldn't be imported was simply manufactured here in the states. All of these facts, coupled with the Great Depression, caused public support for prohibition to disappear. The 18th amendment, which needed overwhelming support to be ratified in the first place, now had enough enemies in 1933 to be superceded by the 21st amendment, thereby clearing the way for states and counties to dismantle prohibition once and for all. Well, sort of. The same gang that had fought so hard for alcohol prohibition also succeeded in prohibiting other intoxicating substances as well. In 1914, they had succeeded in passing the Harrison Narcotics Act, which regulated and taxed the importation and distribution of opium and coca (cocaine) leaves. It is important to note that this act originally only included the power to tax - not to prohibit. During the years of prohibition that followed, the power to "regulate and tax" eventually mutated into full-fledged prohibition. In 1931, regulations were added to the Food and Drug Act that prohibited the manufacture of marijuana with exceptions for medical and industrial uses. You would think that these provisions would have been revoked with the ratification of the 21st amendment in 1933, but that is not the case. These anti-narcotic laws effected a small number of Americans, so by and large, these laws went unnoticed. And in 1937, four years after the repeal of prohibition, congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act. As the name suggests, this law was passed under that guise of a "tax act", since after all, prohibition was over. And there is nothing unconstitutional about the federal government passing a tax. But this law did more than simply tax marijuana. This law imposed a series of regulations and taxes on marijuana growers, prescribers, sellers, and users. The taxes were relatively minor, but there were so many regulations that it was extremely difficult to comply with the law. Basically, in order to sell marijuana you were required to purchase a "tax stamp". According to the law, you had to already be in possession of the marijuana in order to receive the stamp. However, possession of marijuana without the stamp was illegal!!! The end result was that this "tax law" was written in such a way as to make it impossible to pay the tax! It was nothing more than a catch-22 ... you had to have marijuanna in order to pay the tax, but you could not have marijuana unless you had already paid the tax! Since failure to comply with the these insane regulations could result in immense fines and several years of jail time, nobody even tried to obey the law. Why would anybody try to comply with the law, when compliance only made it easier for the Feds to find and arrest you? The net result of this tax act was that if a police officer saw anybody using marijuana, he could probably be sure that that individual was breaking the law. This is how marijuana prohibition was born. Although the primary motivation behind this law was nothing more than good old-fashioned Puritanism, there were other motivating factors as well. Back in the 1930s, Marijuana usage was pretty much confined to one particular segment of society - Mexican immigrants. These immigrants, which had been welcomed in the 1920's, became liabilities in the 1930s when the Great depression settled in and cheap Mexican labors began competing with American laborers for jobs. Many of the supporters of this law saw it as a way to scare those people back across the border. This law was never really intended to be used against "real" Americans. Just like all the other prohibition laws which proceeded it, the Marijuana Tax Act was aimed at a small segment of society - Mexican immigrants and blacks. Opium laws allowed police to go after the Chinese; Peyote laws allowed the police to go after American Indians; And Marijuana laws targeted Blacks and Hispanics. The primary reason alcohol Prohibition was such a dismal failure was because it targeted average Americans. Even the enactment of alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment because everyone agreed that it infringed on the rights granted by our founding fathers. But, few people questioned the legality of these other prohibitions since it didn't affect them personally. Those other people shouldn't be in be in our country to begin with, so why should they be granted the same rights? These other prohibitions weren't targeted at mainstream Americans, so the question of constitutionality really wasn't a major issue. But in the 15 years following the Marijuana Tax Act, marijuana usage began to catch on with other groups of Americans. And, thanks to these laws, the government was able to persecute them as well. Jazz musicians, artists, communists, and other "unwelcome" groups were easy targets of these laws, and most people liked it that way. And again, nobody cared because the government wasn't going after them. Over this time, penalties for drug violations were increased. The Boggs Act of 1951 and the Narcotic Control Act of 1956 instated mandatory minimum federal sentences for drug offenders. But in the 1960's, these drugs made there way into "white" America. "Hippies", which had other arguments against the federal government (Vietnam War, Civil Rights), openly defied the federal government's ban on these substances and began to "tune-in and drop-out". And, as one might suspect, the government began using these drug laws to try to get rid of these "undesirables" as well. But the mandatory minimum sentancing required by federal law began to cause some "PR" problems for the prohibitionists. One famous case was that of John Sinclair, who was sentenced to 10 years for possesion of two joints. So now, the question of re-legalization began to arise. NORML and other groups began openly questioning the government's policy on drugs - and the constitutional legitimacy of such laws. So in 1970, the federal government completely abandoned the guise of prohibition-through-taxation, and passed the "Controlled Substances Act". It was now official. Prohibition was back - with or without another constitutional amendment. So the 1960s and 70's heralded the return of prohibition. So, it should come as no surprise that the 1970s also ushered in the return of same problem that we faced back in the 1920's. Crime, violence, government corruption, disrespect for the law, and loss of individual freedom. And all can be blamed, at least in part, on the return of the policy of prohibition -- or as the modern folk prefer to call it -- " The War on Drugs ". The War on Drugs has allowed organized crime to flourish once again. And thank God - the repeal of alcohol prohibition robbed organized crime of their prime money maker (Hmmm... Does anybody happen to remember how the Kennedy's made their money?...) Crime rates have returned to prohibition levels. And naturally, overzealous politicians insist on passing more and more laws in an attempt to stifle all of this crime. But you would think that Americans had learned their lesson in the 20s. You would think that we would have put and end to it by now, just as they did in the 1930s. But we're not. Most Americans don't realize that prohibitions simply aren't necessary. There aren't many Americans still alive that can remember life before prohibition, and most can't imagine life without it. People don't remember that a constitutional amendment was necessary to enact prohibition back in the 20s. They don't realize that without a constitutional amendment, prohibition is still unconstitutional. Few people notice that the 18th amendment only allowed the feds to regulate "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors" ... not to go after people for simple possession of an "intoxicating liquor". And even fewer realize the 21st amendment regulated the power to prohibit back to the states, thereby removing the federal government's power to prohibit intoxicating substances at all! But, in the minds of people that have lived under prohibition all of their lives, the federal government does have the power to prohibit, don't they? Well, let me ask you this. If the government has the inalienable right to enact prohibitions on intoxicating substances, why did we need a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol? Why didn't they simply pass the Volstead Act without all of the trouble of amending the constitution? I'll tell you why ... It is because they acknowledged the fact that prohibitions trampled on the bill of rights. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the Federal government has the power control individual lives in this way. But the supporters of prohibition felt that freedom from alcohol was more important than freedom from government. And there is nothing in the constitution keeping the people from giving up their rights if they so choose. Hell, we could overturn the entire bill of rights if we were so inclined - We'd just need to convince two-thirds of congress and three-fourths of the states agree with us, but it would be completely legal. There is nothing illegal about changing the constitution. Alcohol prohibition may have been a tremendous mistake, but at least they did it by the book. I for one am of the opinion that no "good idea" is more important than the inalienable rights of mankind. But of course, each man is entitled to his own opinion. And if 3/4 of the states choose to enact prohibition, so be it. But I take great issue with a government that sidesteps its own laws. It is this "rule of law" that sets our governments apart from the other dictatorships of the world. When our government ignores these rules, we in effect become a dictatorship. It is "we the people" that authorized this government to rule over us, with the provision that they rule according to the rules spelled out in the constitution. And when the government violates the laws which we laid out for them, why should they expect the people to live by the rules they lay out for us. And who knows. Maybe some day we will repeal the Bill of Rights - and maybe we'll actually do it by the book this time. After all, that 200-year-old piece of paper is sure making prohibition difficult to enforce. Maybe prohibition actually would be winnable if "criminals" weren't protected by that ancient piece of revolutionary garbage. I'm sure there are some people out there that are saying to themselves, "Gee, all that really would help us win the war on drugs!" This is the direction that some prohibitionists are trying to take us. They are seeing that this war is un-winnable. And the reason it is un-winnable is because it is a "Limited Conflict". There are some weapons that we are not willing to use in this war - weapons that would undoubtedly bring us closer to victory. Most of the weapons used in the war on drugs are aimed directly at restricting personal freedoms. Activities such as property forfeitures and no-knock raids strip individuals of their property rights and of their freedoms. In fact, the ONLY way to enforce prohibitions (and other "Victimless crimes") is by invading the privacy of the individual. By its very definition, these crimes have no "victims", and therefore there isn't anybody to report these crimes to the authorities. All other "real" crimes have victims. Victims that can in turn, report the crime. -- Burglary can be reported by the person burglarized -- Con men can be reported by the person conned -- Rape can be reported by the person raped -- assault can be reported by the person assaulted -- and murder can be reported by, well, the family and friends of the guy that was murdered. But for drug use, the only person that usually can report the crime is the person committing the crime - the person that uses the drugs - or by acquaintances that use drugs along with him. And you can be pretty sure that they aren't going to turn him in. So what can the government do? How can they bring all of these "criminals" to justice? The only option is to resort to less-than-noble practices. They use narcotic agents to infiltrate society and weed out the "undesirables". They urge school children to report on the activities of their parents. They fly over cities and peer into homes with infrared cameras to look for indoor "greenhouses". They create a bunch of frivolous traffic laws that allow police to pull over virtually any citizen they please in order to search their car and various bodily cavities. However, all of these tactics STILL hasn't been enough to curb drug use. So, they must constantly explore new ways to rip people of their rights. More laws, more punishments, more surveillance, more arrests. When they finally are successful in finding one of these miscreants, they punish him in every way possible. They strip him of his rights, his personal freedom, his property, and did I mention - his PROPERTY... they'll even go as far to seize the property of the criminal's FAMILY if they can find a way to get away with it. And why shouldn't they steal the public's property? The drug war is an extremely expensive business. Somebody has to pay for it! Why should the all the taxpayers have to pay for it? Why not just make a few of the taxpayers pay for it - the ones we catch using drugs. Why not let them serve as a warning to others. We are loosing the war on drugs. The public just isn't getting the message. We need to punish these people in every way we can! But, putting a recreational drug user to prison generally does more harm to the individual than moderate drugs use could ever do. In all honesty, which do you think is more harmful -- Smoking a joint every day -- or -- spending YEARS in a jail cell. And more importantly, which extracts a greater toll from society? If we really were concerned for the physical & mental well-being of the individual, we sure as hell wouldn't be throwing him in prison for 5, 10, or even 20 years. Imagine spending even ONE year of your life in jail... losing your job, your girlfriend, your self-respect, and your freedom! Not only that, think about the lovely people you'd get to spend that year with. Incarcerating non-violent drug uses in prisons with murders and rapist is an absolutely TERRIBLE idea. When put together, criminals learn how to be drug users and drug users learn how to be better criminals. [...]
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A Pole (#0)
If you sell someone heroin. You should be executed. Anti civilized people support the legalization of all drugs.
Anti civilized people support the legalization of all drugs. An addiction to bloodthirsty righteous fury is not any better than heroin addiction, and possibly much worse. Seek professional help. "Drugs" is just a name. Don't be blinded by mere names. You can include as drugs various mind altering substances from heroine and LSD to coffee, chocolate and nicotine. Perhaps suppressing trade in heroine would be good, but suppressing wine and coffee would be wrong. Don't you agree? The question is whether marijuana is more like wine or more like heroine. BTW, heroine was invented and promoted as a safe non-addictive substitute for natural and milder forms of opiate medications: " If you were around in the early 1900s, a time when tuberculosis and pneumonia were among the leading causes of death, your doctor might have prescribed a drug called heroin to treat your cough. As explained in the intriguing podcast,1 linked above, heroin was first synthesized by chemist Charles Romley Alder Wright in 1874, but he abandoned it after running animal tests. More than two decades later, Felix Hoffman, who worked with Bayer pharmaceutical company, again synthesized the drug, and the company’s head of the pharmacological laboratory, Heinrich Dreser, decided to move forward with it. Dreser deemed heroin to be “an original Bayer product” (despite being aware of Wright’s earlier discovery) and, after testing it on animals and humans in 1898, presented the drug to the Congress of German Naturalists and Physicians. Heroin, it was claimed, was a miracle drug “10 times more effective than codeine as a cough medicine,” worked better than morphine as a painkiller and had “almost no toxic effects,” including being non-addictive…"
No I don't agree. Suppressing trade in Heroine would surely be god. Suppressing wine or coffee would be stupid.
"god" you say? :)
No. Good.
No. They were legal and they were abused. Things got so bad that they were made illegal. But, being ignorant of history, the author wants to return to the "good old days" of legal drugs. But this time, we have all these social programs -- including free health care, housing, food, clothing, etc. -- to make it even easier for people to become parasites. Once people are hooked on drugs and dependent on society to take care of them, they will truly be free.
Heroine? I think you meant to say, "Perhaps suppressing trade in heroin would be god".
In effect, most prescription painkillers act exactly like heroin. If you sell someone prescription painkillers. You should be executed?
Bull. -- Sure, some people abused narcotics before the prohibitionists unconstitutionally criminalized them, but it's silly to claim things are 'better' today. I'd bet my bottom dollar that a greater percentage of people are addicted to drugs NOW, than ever were prior to their prohibition.
Drug legalization --a. k. a. "An effective strategem for the war on rational sanity."
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
(Edited)
If you sell someone heroin. You should be executed.
#3. To: A Pole (#2)
Perhaps suppressing trade in heroine would be good, but suppressing wine and coffee would be wrong. Don't you agree?
#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)
Suppressing trade in Heroine would surely be god.
#5. To: A Pole (#4)
#6. To: A Pole (#0)
"Of course drugs are illegal ... They have always been illegal, haven't they?"
#7. To: A Pole, A K A Stone (#2)
"Perhaps suppressing trade in heroine would be good"
#8. To: A K A Stone (#1)
If you sell someone heroin. You should be executed
#9. To: Y'ALL, misterwhite (#6)
No. They (drugs) were legal and they were abused. Things got so bad that they were made illegal.
#10. To: A Pole (#0)
(Edited)
Prohibition II - a.k.a. "The War on Drugs"
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]