Prohibition does not reduce supply. That is marketing bullshit.

[chorpler]

Yes, the rate of “problematic use” after people have been prescribed opiates is very low, around 0.01%.

[mswas]

@JFLuvly

I have to wonder if marijuana was legalized, if any change in the statistics would be relevant. I would think that when asked the question, “Have you used marijuana in the last year?”, that many would say no even if they have, just because of the legal and social ramifications. If after five years, the social norm was legalized marijuana, how many would then admit to use?

That’s a good question, but also I think a lot of people probably would start using it because it was available. Tobacco may stay legal but its regular usage will drop significantly as the older generation of addicts dies off. I’d be interested to see rates of nicotine addiction by generation. I’d imagine there are far few Gen Y than Boomer smokers.

[Captain_Amazing]

@mswas

That’s a good question, but also I think a lot of people probably would start using it because it was available.

So then, even if prohibition doesn’t reduce supply, it reduces demand. And aren’t you being kind of contradictory here. If you say that the reason more people would start using it was because it would become available, then isn’t increasing availability increasing supply?

[mswas]

@Captain_Amazing

So then, even if prohibition doesn’t reduce supply, it reduces demand. And aren’t you being kind of contradictory here. If you say that the reason more people would start using it was because it would become available, then isn’t increasing availability increasing supply?

Well you should probably read the whole thing as my opinion has evolved over the course of the discussion.

There are two contentions that I am making.

1. Harder drugs have different deterrants than legality that are more important than legal status.
2. This doesn’t apply to softer drugs like Marijuana.

So basically hard drugs are incredibly dangerous whether legal or not, and this serves as a deterrant in and of itself. Whereas Marijuana is not particularly dangerous so it’s likely that prohibition has a greater impact on demand.

But yes, I think it’s more relevant that it reduces demand than reducing supply. Marijuana legalized would likely be normalized and as such we’d see it rise to levels of usage like alcohol as a normal thing one does at a social occasion. Heroin on the other hand is unlikely to be socialized as such, even if legal.

[Captain_Amazing]

Right. But if the policy goal is to reduce the number of people smoking marijuana, then prohibition achieves that. I know you don’t agree with that policy goal, but that’s different than saying that prohibition doesn’t work.

[mswas]

@Captain_Amazing

Right. But if the policy goal is to reduce the number of people smoking marijuana, then prohibition achieves that. I know you don’t agree with that policy goal, but that’s different than saying that prohibition doesn’t work.

Can you get on page two please? This is a page one argument.

My argument is that while this will likely be true for Marijuana, it’s unlikely to be true with harder drugs which have a greater downside. The risk of doing heroin in and of itself is a greater danger than the likelihood of being arrested for possession of it. Whereas with Marijuana the greatest danger associated with it are the legal repercussions.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Captain_Amazing

But if the policy goal is to reduce the number of people smoking marijuana, then prohibition achieves that. I know you don’t agree with that policy goal, but that’s different than saying that prohibition doesn’t work.

Shooting everyone who used marijuana would also reduce the number of people who use marijuana, by one every time. Pretty sure any outcome where you create more problems than you solve falls under the heading of “doesn’t work.”