What if the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had not, in Nobember 2003 ruled that barring two persons of the same gender from marrying violated the Massachusetts Constitution?
Criminal prohibition is of course a complete abandonment of regulating a product or service.
The Prohibitionist proceeds on the premise that a threat of criminal sanctions will result in the targeted activity coming to a halt.
In fact, if the product or service is in demand, then the activity does not halt, it merely becomes clandestine.
Illegal activities cannot be regulated since the participants are unknown.
Critics of ours who disagree with our call to legalize all drugs for regulated distribution to adults complain that "regulation won't prevent kids from getting drugs!". This implies that a lack of regulation will accomplish their desire instead.
When someone tells me that a regulated distribution system for drugs won't keep kids from obtaining drugs, so we cannot legalize, I invite them to join me in removing all the regulations currently applied to distribution of alcohol, tobacco and pharmacueticals.
After all, if regulation is a bad policy, let's get rid of it all together.
On a related note, a common retort to our call to legalize drugs is for the Prohibitionist to state firmly, "We already have enough problems from legal alcohol, so we don't need to add another risky drug to the mix."
This statement implies that legalizing and regulating alcohol distribution in 1934 was a step backward for society. Of course, that is not true. We did not legalize alcohol distribution in hopes of eliminating the problems attached to consumption of alcohol. We did it to eliminate the problems attached to a system where criminal gangs and cartels control distribution.
Thanks for the topic
Steve Heath in Clearwater Florida Office Law Enforcement Against Prohibition http://leap.cc/tbay
2 comments:
Excellent points here.
Criminal prohibition is of course a complete abandonment of regulating a product or service.
The Prohibitionist proceeds on the premise that a threat of criminal sanctions will result in the targeted activity coming to a halt.
In fact, if the product or service is in demand, then the activity does not halt, it merely becomes clandestine.
Illegal activities cannot be regulated since the participants are unknown.
Critics of ours who disagree with our call to legalize all drugs for regulated distribution to adults complain that "regulation won't prevent kids from getting drugs!". This implies that a lack of regulation will accomplish their desire instead.
When someone tells me that a regulated distribution system for drugs won't keep kids from obtaining drugs, so we cannot legalize, I invite them to join me in removing all the regulations currently applied to distribution of alcohol, tobacco and pharmacueticals.
After all, if regulation is a bad policy, let's get rid of it all together.
On a related note, a common retort to our call to legalize drugs is for the Prohibitionist to state firmly, "We already have enough problems from legal alcohol, so we don't need to add another risky drug to the mix."
This statement implies that legalizing and regulating alcohol distribution in 1934 was a step backward for society. Of course, that is not true. We did not legalize alcohol distribution in hopes of eliminating the problems attached to consumption of alcohol. We did it to eliminate the problems attached to a system where criminal gangs and cartels control distribution.
Thanks for the topic
Steve Heath in Clearwater
Florida Office
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
http://leap.cc/tbay
Post a Comment