sure, but you are talking about hardcore drugs. Tobacco products tend to appeal to the average consumer, like people who would never think of doing drugs. My point is if we made cigarettes, or other tobacco products illegal, it would drastically hinder your average person, not inclined to partake in more serious drugs...better put, you can't go into a gas station and buy a gram of cocaine. If you could we would live in a society of chronic use so extreme as to render it more of an epedimic than it is now. Tobacco products, although arguably the most addictive, don't fall into that same category, imho.
We would have a situation where the most extreme addicts would procure tobacco products at much lesser of a rate than we can now. This is simply due to the ease of which anyone can buy a pack of smokes, anywhere, and at anytime. Smokers don't have to know dealers to buy cigarettes. Yes we are dealing with a failing war on drugs, especially according to your data. But I think it would make a huge impact with my reasoning. People would obviously be dissuaded to start in the first place, and chronic smokers could much more easily quit if they didn't have the "luxary" of walking 40 feet to the local store.
as a quick edit, yes, many young people will experiment with all kinds of drugs, but mostly marijiuana, is the big one. Cigarettes go hand in hand with a culture that still romanticises it as being "cool." It wouldn't be so cool if it weren't so readily available. The availability factor is the mitigating factor in my argument. There is something about the esteemed "good time" that comes with the more hard core drugs, that I don't think applies to tobacco products, in that something like cigarettes is something "to do" as in buying a six pack of Bud. Less easy access would equate to drastic decline in tobacco sales.
Thanks for your response, dfowler.
Alcohol also appeals to the average consumer.
Can we learn some lessons from history?:
http://everything2.c...organized crimeIn 1933 the twenty-first amendment came into effect, ending an era of prohibition. Prohibition was an absolute failure. Not only did it make criminals out of the common man and woman, it hurt the economy by legally cutting off trade of alcohol. Prices of alcohol rose, more people consumed alcohol, more alcohol was consumed per person, alcohol was often poisonous, and organized crime was able to find a market and thrive (Poholek). There were truly no pros to prohibition, it simply did not work.
On December 5, 1933 the twenty-first amendment was ratified. After prohibition, commercial alcohol production was slow to gain momentum, at least for hard liquor. The breweries did it fairly quickly. This is because when President Roosevelt took office he modified the rules of prohibition, allowing the sale of beer with an alcohol content of 3.2 percent. This is almost the level of today"s beer. Makers of hard liquor took a little longer to produce their products.
As mentioned earlier, organized crime was a direct result of prohibition. Toward the end of prohibition the gangsters realized they would soon be without a market. In 1931 what is now known as the Mafia cam into existence. 'About the time prohibition ended, a national 'Commission' was formed to coordinate gangland operations throughout the country, to arbitrate disputes between gangs, and at times to step in and set right a badly run local organization or to appoint a local leader' (Barry 79).
A modern day comparison must be made. Today, as during prohibition, many people feel that certain illicit substances should be legal. The arguments for this are clear and prohibition provides a great example. In fact all of the same arguments that applied for prohibition apply for the drug wars.
From the economic points of view if the drugs were legal prices would not be inflated and competition could drive them down. One would be able to go to a 'drug store', much like one goes to a liquor store. This would mean lower prices for the consumer and a legal business for the storeowner. Aside from offering greater choice to the individual it would help the state. Tax revenue from alcohol was seriously missed during the prohibition era. The tax money generated from any other drug would help with the national expenses.
It would also be healthier. As pointed out earlier alcohol was often mixed and cut with chemicals, sometimes with deadly effects. Deaths from alcohol increased during prohibition. Would deaths from other drugs decrease if they were legal? With prohibition as an example it would seem likely.
Crime would go down. Admittedly people would still be committing the same acts, but they would be legal. During prohibition the average person that wanted a drink became an outlaw. This just does not make sense. Not only did prohibition cause an increase in criminal behavior by normal people, it increased the state"s expense from prosecuting these people. Much money was wasted that could have gone to something so much better. Today, the same thing is occurring with the current drug prosecutions. People largely ignore these laws much like prohibition was ignored.
Edited by bobdrake12, 09 May 2010 - 03:38 AM.
