# Abortion/drugs/etc.: Does making things illegal work? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2006, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-drugs-etc-does-making-things-illegal-work/344171 "2006-02-12T22:45:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-drugs-etc-does-making-things-illegal-work/344171/21 "2006-02-13T20:50:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Making a drug illegal does have an effect. For a large number of people, probably a majority in most cases, there’s a huge mental gap between legality and illegality. There are many people who simply set their standards of right and wrong based on what the government does and doesn’t allow. How many people in the United States use any illegal drug on a daily basis? How does that compare to the number of people using legal pleasure drugs (tobacco and alcohol) on a regular basis? How do you know its not the other way round. That the government just follows the public opinion. At least, I don’t think its a fair comparison you make in the end. Let me ask: How many people do you think drank alcohol during the prohibition on a daily basis? How did that compare to the number og people who ate brussel sprouts on a regular basis? ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2006, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-drugs-etc-does-making-things-illegal-work/344171/22 "2006-02-13T21:33:24Z")
> [@mr. jp](#): > > That the government just follows the public opinion. It does, but it’s more insidious than that. When cannabis was first made illegal in the US in 1937, there were an estimated 35,000 smokers in the US, mostly migrant illiterate Mexican laborers. During the Congressional hearings held before the law was passed, the representative from the American Medical Association testified that he hadn’t heard of problems due to marijuana or that there was a need for its prohibition. But since it was a “narcotic” (and a deadly menace according to Harry Anslinger, head of the agency dealing with drugs then), it was outlawed. At that point, there was no firm “public opinion” on cannabis. What’s important to remember that since drugs are illegal, the dominant source of information **is** the government. To conduct research on marijuana, you need govt. permission among others, so they control the studies that get done. The media also filters the information disseminated, and before the advent of the internet, that was a death knell, e.g. did you know that the federal govt. which denies any medical use of marijuana, has been [supplying](http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2005/02/18/irvRosenbergAndTheCompassi.html) a limited number of patients with marijuana, or that a DEA law judge [ruled](http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1071664) in 1988 that keeping marijuana in Schedule I (no medical use) was “unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious”. It’s a vicous cycle: Illegal -\> Government control -\> Filtered information -\> Public opinion -\> Illegal -\> … /off-topic Onto the OP Define ‘work’. If what’s meant is total or near-complete eradication, then of course not. If ‘containment’, then it’s a mixed answer. Use is contained significantly of the harder drugs, modestly of the softer drugs. Harm, not so much, since it may avert harm by reducing use, but it increases harms for those who do use (impurity, dealing with drug dealers, very high prices which can lead to crime…etc). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-drugs-etc-does-making-things-illegal-work/344171.md?page=1)