Here is an interesting take on why alcohol prohibition during the 1920’s began and why it ended. It has more to do with tax revenues than anything else. This theory has modern relevance:
So, if the history of alcohol prohibition is a guide, drug prohibition will not end merely because there are many sound, sensible and humane reasons to end it. Instead, it will end only if and when Congress gets desperate for another revenue source.
6 comments:
I read something like this years ago and I believed it to be true, as I believe it could be true today, with the industries of sex and drugs.
Imagine the lives that could be saved, imagine the reduction in expenses in our failed attempts to control these industries and imagine the revenues that would be available to the areas of health care and education.
Instead of thumping our chest about being the most powerful nation on the face of this earth, why not work at being one of the most respected nations.
By legalizing these areas we would have the opportunity to show the world we are a people who care enough about our own to provide a healthier and more educated nation.
Oh, forget it. This would call for strong leadership from our men in women in public office and a county of voters willing to take a risk to do the right thing.
Taking a risk is something we haven't done for the last two hundred years, why do it again.
We would rather fight wars in our schools and homes because of drugs, and on our streets because of prostitution, and we like to pick leaders with character flaws who lack the initiative that we our selves don't have. It feels good to slide into an abyss, doesn't it..
well written! quite persuasive, though I'm not ready to legalize drugs and prostitution. Still, though, good arguments.
Thanks for your comments Anon 5:57
I am not sure I am either, I thought about it, and have some second thoughts. But I think it should be part of a public forum.
There was a medical marijuana bill proposed by some Maryland State Delegates during the previous session, but it did not get anywhere. I think the subject is too taboo for most people to ponder, which is a real shame.
I think the real argument here is not what Boudreaux is making, but what Jim Adams is making in his comment. Drug prohibition is worse than counterproductive; it causes violence and deaths.
I think the real argument here is not what Boudreaux is making, but what Jim Adams is making in his comment. Drug prohibition is worse than counterproductive; it causes violence and deaths.
Post a Comment