Has prohibiting a substance ever worked?

Works just fine in Singapore. Get caught with drugs, die.

Does that go for public drunkenness as well?

According to section 510 of the Penal Code, whoever, in a state of intoxication, appears in any public place, or in any place which he cannot enter, and behaves "in such a manner as to cause annoyance to any person", may be jailed up to six months, fined up to $1,000, or both.

The most successful prohibition implementations are draconian and statist, being Singapore and nations governed by Sharia. It really makes drug trade for criminals viable because they can be sold for more than they are worth. Cocaine once came in the Sears catalog.

Yeah, the best way looks like removing the societal pressures that cause people to turn towards addiction in the first place. Drugs are a societal issue, and treating them like an individiual failing doesn't work.

We don't have real prohibition. We have a weird black market situation that makes a lot of people a lot of money on both sides of the law. Black markets are beneficial to states even places like the DPRK looks the other way when it comes to black markets.

Real prohibition is possible. But that doesn't make anyone any money.

It can work, the issue in the USA is that punishments for getting caught with drugs isn't harsh enough and privately owned media companies can legally promote and glorify drug use. smuggling and sales. It will never be completely stopped but that doesn't mean we should give up, slavery isn't allowed because we can't stop it all over the world either.

In my opinion people that buy, and use drugs should be as guilty as a pedophile that buys child pornography. They are both supporting an industry that is responsible for numerous terrible crimes. If you support jailing a pedophile for ownership of child porn you should also support jailing drug users for ownership of drugs.

>B-But me smoking weed has never killed anyone bro chill out! XD

How these people fail to see the people that grew, smuggled and sold their addiction to them have committed heinous crimes frustrates me to no end.

However I am autistic and I am constantly told this opinion is incorrect.

what about your autism pills

The confusing part is that you dont seem to understand that if weed is made legal, the black market and criminals wont make a profit off of it anymore. When there was an alcohol prohobition the mafia bribed politicians to KEEP it illigal so they could keep making insane profits.

>They are both supporting an industry that is responsible for numerous terrible crimes.

Maybe we should jail every tax payer while we're at it.

>That may be true, but I'd be more inclined to read those numbers from a statistic source than simply believing something you just conjured off the top of your head.

independent.co.uk/voices/saudi-prince-caught-up-in-drugs-bust-lucky-the-incident-happened-in-beirut-a6711076.html

The issue is alcohol and inconsistency. If weed and other mild recreational drugs are illegal, alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine should be as well. There's no real way to justify the current arbitrary classification of certain drugs as illegal, and others as perfectly fine for consumption.

>If my criminal activity was legal and not illegal I wouldn't be a criminal

Drug addicts always shift the discussion away from their own criminal activity. Sure if it was legal you wouldn't be supporting a dangerous criminals life style.

However weed it not legal. You are breaking the law and supporting criminal organizations, until you stop supporting murders and thieves then don't come to me with pleas of this sort. A murderer would vote to make murder legal too. Drug users are as guilty as the people that produce, smuggle and sell drugs to people. Every dollar you give them is a blood money.

Criminals shouldn't even be allowed to vote baka.

>Works just fine in Singapore. Get caught with drugs, die.

straitstimes.com/singapore/rising-number-of-drug-abusers-under-age-30

That post was so stupid that you have to trolling at this point. You need to work on subtley retard.

most pot is america and canada is domestic, it oozes from the legal states and provinces to the rest of them. Drug legalization is about autarky. Drugs are bad, having foreigners control the logistics of the transnational enterprises is worse.

It's to keep the police employed, the criminal defense attorneys employed, the rehab industry going, small time drug dealers from not tearing their cities apart with more violent crime, and all that money gets laundered back to the US anyway.

Everyone is fat and happy. It's never going to get legalised. It's never going to be properly stamped out either.

You'll be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

You'll never leave your mother's basement if any real civil unrest happened and you'd spend the entirety of it smoking weed to prevent yourself from literally shaking.

I'm actually a teetotaler orphan.

Not even kidding, I don't even drink caffeinated beverages.

Also, I have nothing to live for and I own firearms, so I'd probably participate in any kind of organized violence against people I don't like.

I am not trolling, a pedophile is guilty of supporting child porn when he buys child porn, why are you not guilty of the same?

Domestic or foreign, a criminal is selling it to people and is probably committing violent crime against people to do it.

So not only a criminal but one that wants to kill people that disagree with him, drug addicts everyone.

How do you justify paying money to any number of industries with bad track records, anonymous? It's sure as hell not just kiddy porn or weed that are products of unethical behavior.

Do you do your due diligence for every product you buy to make sure the providers are entirely above board morally? Or is your moral argument garbage and you only really care about the basic legality?

I'm a hard drinking police officer that steals heroin from the evidence locker I can't wait to take out the trash attempting a revolution.

China did pretty well at getting rid of opium

But I do love potheads who think that just cause they haven't been hurt by their drug that all illegal drugs must be okay.

>hey are both supporting an industry that is responsible for numerous terrible crimes.
You do realize that the vast majority of crimes surrounding drug trade, only exist because they are illegal.

You don't see nearly so many people shooting each other over alcohol and cigarettes. Nor do you see people stripping the copper wiring out of houses - hard labor at what amounts to less than minimum wage - just to support alcohol and cigarette habits, because drug testing at entry level jobs prevents even nominal employment.

Never mind the sort of vast organized crime rings prohibition creates - the mafia literally taking over entire local governments, and growing so powerful as to even threaten the central government during Prohibition.

If it's legal, and people with light habits can still get employment, the only person it negatively affects it the user and those close to them. If it's illegal, it affects entire nations and creates a black market worth trillions.

The only place where drug addiction rates and related problems have been regularly dropping, are those nations that made them legal and/or switched to a harm reduction model.

>I am not trolling, a pedophile is guilty of supporting child porn when he buys child porn, why are you not guilty of the same?

Stop using this shit child porn argument. At its most basic level the production of child pornography (at least real child porn) harms a child. If you want your kiddytape a kid must be taped.

Purchasing weed does not by its own virtues enable the harm of others. That violence is a byproduct (and a byproduct of its illegality, for that matter) doesn't magically make the substance unethical. It's a shitty argument to say "Weed should be illegal because the industry causes people harm" when the industry only causes people harm because it is illegal. Child pornography, legal or not, causes harm.

If the buyer is equally culpable to EVERY BAD THING in the industry of the seller, how many people have been harmed by the likes of walmart? How much blood did it cost for you to fill up your car a little cheaper? Are you sure someone isn't working their fingers to the bone so you can have a banana 20 cents cheaper?

If somebody grows cannabis on their own property and then smokes it, have they committed a violent crime?

That's so badass. Wish the average westerner wasn't so soft. We should bring back public executions.

Whatever helps you fall asleep at night you degenerate.

nice argument friendo. What's the matter, did your shitty rationale just collapse under the first hint of scrutiny?

No not at all, you're supporting blood thirsty criminals for a shitty luxury item and you just cant rationalize it.

>unironically believing the government should have the right to tell you what you can and cannot put into your body

But my dealer told me it was all free trade.

Then why don't you address my points you little bitch. You're just digging your heels in because you're a retard who doesn't think about his convictions before spewing them.

>let's have krokodil and heroin dispensaries on every corner whats the worst that can happen heh society doesn't actually exist every man an island 8^)

singapore does not have a thriving black market. Please stop crying

in reality all that needs to be increased in chance of disciplining and the stakes. You're on the right track, don't fall for the lies

>a 6% rise in a tiny figure
>large

statistical fluctuations

>no food regulation, ever! Moooooomm

hurry up and kill yourself

funny, he doesn't think drug use is itself a harm

There's nothing to think about you're funding drug lords that poison and destroy entire cities every time you buy some weed for a cheap 45 minute high making your pizza taste slightly better.

What if I just buy drugs and leave them in like playgrounds or churches.

>perfectly legal to blow your brains out with a shotgun
>illegal to smoke a plant or eat a cheeseburger with trans fat

ameritard logic

the cure is chemo

>singapore does not have a thriving black market. Please stop crying

Sorry Prime Minister Loong, didn't realise you Veeky Forums'd

What if they're not drunk but still annoying?

>funny, he doesn't think drug use is itself a harm
By itself, it's a harm to the user and those who care for them, and maybe a few incidental bystanders at best, no one else.

Make it illegal, and people who don't use drugs, or even know anyone who use drugs, start getting shot up in the streets, huge swaths of the population become unemployable, whole governments become unstable, sometimes even fall, and now you have a black market so large it actually has an impact on the whole damned world's economy.

Take your pick.

>There's nothing to think about

Your brain in a nutshell. It's all empty up there, isn't it?
Enjoy your vapid self satisfaction as you refuse to question whatever bullshit someone squeezed into your little eggshell, anonymous.

If you can't support your position with arguments, your position is worthless.

I buy my weed from a dispensary. The dispensary buys their weed from a state regulated farm. There's no violent drug lords involved.
What now?

Socially transmitted behavior is definitely not benign when it's effect is by default harmful. I've made my pick. Kill the dealers, cane the users. It isn't a difficult question

>Because it's somewhere; it's everywhere, I swear it!
yellow media go home

You have no argument and your entire worldview is shit.

Even on it's face, Prohibition was a terrible failure on every level.

This is exactly how it should be.

But like someone else said making it illegal generates more jobs makes people feel like they got a cause.

social behavior can be curtailed as effectively as transmitted if anti-smoking is recognized as a model and pattern that can be reproduced. Social sanctions are the best method. That's why even fat-shaming is resisted.

it really can't compete with physiological inputs such as "Addiction" (it's all learned behavior, the narrow definition of addiction as withdrawal obscures the fact pleasurable behavior reinforces) . Even contemporary antismoking campaigns seem to have hit a wall these days, and smoking is the most obviously disproved habit. You might notice they're inching towards prohibition like the original alcohol crusade went. After a point you can't credibly reduce the problem with social pressure. Besides of which, public opinion is easily shifted

>implying prohibition doesn't actually complement social shaming

Founding codes of laws are so draconian they create a social culture to reinforce it. That's the real takeaway of areas like Singapore. Operant conditioning of morality

alcohol use statistically declined during prohibition. You've been watching too much hollywood

My argument's right here, , it's not my fault you're skirting around it because you're too fucking dumb to address it.

It's okay, go grumble to yourself in your safe space while adults actually discuss things.

or under Islamic rule which is a totalitarian cult.

>alcohol use statistically declined during prohibition.

And violence related to the industry skyrocketed as it was shifted from legal to illegal sellers.

Prohibiting something is likely to prevent the casual users from bothering, that's about it.

>alcohol use statistically declined during prohibition. You've been watching too much hollywood

How the hell would you prove this? Did bootleggers all keep exacting records of sales? Show me your stats.

Your habit funds bloodthirsty drug lords swimming in a sea of blood poisoning entire communities how many times do I have to repeat myself?

>Singapore
Where violence and drug use is actually on the rise, pretty much directly in line with their new draconian policies? Good example.

How about a country where drug use and violence is in decline, like Switzerland, where they no longer imprison for drug use and treat it like a disease instead of a crime, and both usage and related violence dropped like a rock off a cliff the moment they switched to that model?

Telling adults what they can and can't ingest just naturally leads to revulsion. It's failed in every instance it's been tried. The closest to succeeding it's ever come is a switch to newer more powerful drugs - a natural evolution when drug laws require smugglers to come up with stuff that's more potent and takes up less space. (Such as Prohibition where 200 proof became the norm.)

We consider all sorts of less fundamental things than the choice of what you can imbibe "human rights" these days, yet somehow we skip over this one, despite the obvious consequences.

Meanwhile cigarette and alcohol abuse has gone nowhere but down. Go fig.

All the war on drugs has done is destabilized economies and governments more than any drug ever possibly could have, even if every other citizen was a user.

Maybe killing people for harming themselves makes you feel better, but it does nothing but aggravate the situation. More powerful drugs, more powerful dealers, more violent dealers, more desperate users, more powerful, more corrupting, and further reaching black markets, every freaking time.

Everything in your post is wrong

None of this addresses anything I said, you fucking donkey. Prohibition is WHY THOSE DRUG LORDS THRIVE.
Saying it funds drug lords is not an argument in favor of prohibition.

Furthermore, again, given you made your shit child porn equivalency, you've still failed to address how I debunked that. Nor have you addressed whether any of your other spending habits also support immoral industries, which they almost certainly do. If you believe that people who buy drugs are EQUALLY responsible as the "bloodthirsty drug lords" then how do you come to terms with all the consumer bullshit you buy that's also derived from immoral industry?

what a stupid comparison how the fuck do you legislate against suicide

Drugs are poisonous to the nation you will come to terms to this eventually, as are overly fatty foods and sugar in every food stuff. Societal engineering exists and society CAN be controlled.

>alcohol use statistically declined during prohibition. You've been watching too much hollywood
The crack you are on... Of course people admitting to alcohol abuse or submitting to therapy declined, but alcohol poisoning reports from hospitals increased more than ten fold.

Go ask your grandparents about alcohol during prohibition. It was not only rampant, it was dangerous as fuck. Meanwhile the mafia pretty much rose to such prominence as to be a nearly become a second government in many towns, supply employment and even welfare in some cases. With such a hugely funded criminal network, all sorts of related crime skyrocketed, including child trafficking which reached its all time high under prohibition.

All drug prohibition does is generate crime by presupposing a crime.

>idiots ITT that think a hard line will solve anything

this is a history board correct? For anyone that knows their history they should know that this doesn't work.

reactionary faggots like you are the cancer killing Veeky Forums, you don't even know history and you try to insert your stupid /pol/ logic into discussions you have no business in

>weed is grown by bloodthirsty druglords
it shows you know absolutely jackshit about weed and weed market. All the weed dealing chains I've ever seen can be traced to 30-50 yo people growing local weed in some semi-hidden place in the mountains/forest, with literally no harm caused by anyone to anyone

>make weed illegal
>force international illegal drug market where people die and shit is horrible
>make weed legal
>weed is grown by hippies in the mountains and nobody gets hurt

hm...decisions decisions

Weed is kept illegal so the price is driven upwards so the members of the cabinet who take part in drug trafficking can sell at a higher price.

See: Randy Cunningham

What about your cheap coffee, friendo? Are you willing to accept your cheap goods are bought on the backs of the crushing poverty of others?

>Even contemporary antismoking campaigns seem to have hit a wall these days
?????????

The chinese

Afraid not.

bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-05-25/china-s-growing-meth-addiction

Oh, and you know all those scary "research chemicals" you hear about on the news? Guess where they come from.

It locks away niggers and liberals degenerates. Seems to be working just fine.

>Everything in your post is wrong
Care to expand or just making random comments that aren't helpful?

Someone explain to me why growing and then consuming a plant (with very mild side effects compared to other legal drugs) on your own property as a rational adult should be wrong.

>Someone grows their own pot in their farm/backyard
>"B-b-but you facilitated an industry of heinous crimes"
Kill yourself, idiot

>Pretending that most addicts produce their own product

Sure it happens but most just buy it from an existing group.

>Has it ever worked? Is there any benefit at all?
No and no.
It also prohibits regulated care for addicts and the allocation of money to solving root causes of addiction.

Yeah, maybe because it's illegal and most people live in urban areas where you can't easily hide such a thing.

Don't kid yourself, its because people are lazy. As many addicts looove to say "it being illegal doesn't stop us from smoking it"

GOOD LUCK DUTERTE

Yes I'm sure that's the only reason why every mdma user doesn't have his own chemical lab in his fucking shed.

No the black market becomes formal.

Yes.

sure social engineering works but who is infallible enough to lead? Any form of control can be abused. Our current system of controls (laws) are being abused at both ends. How would a social engineered society differ?

The main reason why the US has strict drug laws is that it keeps the prison-industrial complex up and running.

The real question is “what is the goal of the war on drugs”?

Is it to reduce drug use and addiction and the associated crime and other negative effects on communities? Or is it to forcefully hammer down Nancy’s puritanical morality no matter what the actual effects on drug abuse?

If you want to reduce drug use and addiction (and so on) there are much more efficient ways to accomplish that than continuing the war as is. If it’s the morality thing than keep going.

Has prohibiting murder ever worked?

Worthless drug addicts want to legalize drugs not for any other reason other than to make it easier to get high

No such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.

>libertarians choose drugs and sugar as their hills to die on
>moreso than any other of the modern structure's innumerable insults to intellectual and social freedom

Sad!

you have to be aware of the fact that this is a fallacious argument, stop trolling

No, all pro-drug reforms (medical marijuana, decriminalization of small quantities of pot, etc) are all step by step changes druggies have used to their ultimate goal of total legalization.