Options
Sam Aurelius Milam III
I noticed in passing lately that the Comcast Guide listed some documentaries about Prohibition.  I didn't bother to watch any of them.  I can probably guess most of what was in them.  They probably noted that Prohibition was a mistake.  They might have pointed out that Prohibition added uncertainty to the purchase of alcoholic beverages.  I'm not sure about this but Prohibition hooch might have been more likely to damage a person's health than what people bought at the liquor stores, prior to Prohibition.  Of course, Prohibition made it more risky to acquire, possess, or consume the stuff for other reasons.  For example, such behavior could land a person in jail.  Worse yet, Prohibition created a vast industry of criminal activity.  What could have been more predictable in advance or more obvious in retrospect?  When the government creates crimes it's obvious that it also creates criminals.  Worst of all, those criminals gave the government a dandy excuse to increase its police powers.  Maybe the decision makers in the government had exactly that purpose in mind when they enacted Prohibition.  The most distressing thing about Prohibition is that most people seem to be too stupid to learn the lesson that it provided.  That is, if Prohibition worked a certain way for alcohol, then why would anybody think that it will work any differently for recreational drugs?
People have been using recreational drugs for longer than recorded history can record.  Whether or not somebody believes that such drugs are harmful, or evil, or should be illegal won't prevent other people from using the drugs.  Anti-drug reformers might legitimately use education in an effort to persuade people to refrain from using recreational drugs but the prohibition of drug use will invariably fail.  Worse yet, such attempted prohibition will prove to be far more harmful than the drug use that it pretends to prevent.
The only difference that can be made regarding the use of recreational drugs is the circumstances under which people will use them.  I see two options.
Option One — Recreational Drugs are Prohibited:  Under Option One, people will buy recreational drugs of uncertain quality from criminal drug dealers.  They'll pay exorbitant prices.  They'll risk adverse reactions, death, or prison.  Their purchases will support a vast industry of criminal activity and reinforce the government's excuses for its repressive police powers.  The benefits that are unique to Option One will accrue only to the drug dealers and to the cops.
Option Two — Recreational Drugs Are Not Prohibited:  Under Option Two, people will buy recreational drugs of predictable and consistent quality from places like the Walgreen's Pharmacy.  They'll pay reasonable prices.  Maybe their insurance might even pay for the drugs.  People might still risk adverse reactions to the recreational drugs but at least there'll be an easily accessible record of what they used.  Medical help will be available.  The lessons learned from any such adverse reactions will help the pharmacies to be more careful in the future.  People who take the recreational drugs won't have to buy them from criminals or worry about going to prison.  The funds that they spend on recreational drugs will go to the pharmacies, not to the drug dealers.  Neither the drug dealers nor the cops will benefit.  The benefits that are unique to Option Two will accrue only to the consumers of the recreational drugs and to the pharmacies.  The producers of recreational drugs, of course, will benefit under either option.
Which of the two options that I've suggested seems more likely to cause the most harm?  Anybody who's in doubt about it should watch those Prohibition documentaries.  The main thing that the documentaries probably didn't mention is that prohibition didn't end.  It has become diversified and pervasive.  Today, most people seem to regard prohibition as a normal condition.  Let's repeal prohibition.