undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmonocasa2y ago0 comments

> it's rarely these societal issues fixed themselves with more lenient social policies (they often, in fact, got worse).

Opium was prohibited even after the opium wars. That's not a good example of non-prohibition but instead the knockon effects of worst of both worlds informal, capricious quasi-legality.

> The counter-example is Prohibition (which was an abject failure), but maybe this is (at least in part) due to the cultural importance of alcohol of so many people. I don't really think cocaine or meth are such cultural lynchpins.

I mean, people haven't really stopped doing Cocaine or Meth, and the most negative effects of prohibition (extremely violent organized crime) still seem to be present.

0 comments

dvt2y ago

> That's not a good example of non-prohibition

Yep, which is why I used the term "more lenient policies," not necessarily non-prohibition. Opium dens were getting more and more problematic in San Francisco[1] until they were criminalized in the late 19th century.

> I mean, people haven't really stopped doing Cocaine or Meth

I don't think the end goal of prohibition is zero use of said substance, but rather its control as to prevent large-scale societal disruption.

[1] https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Chinatown%27s_Opium_...

monocasaOP2y ago

> Yep, which is why I used the term "more lenient policies," not necessarily non-prohibition. Opium dens were getting more and more problematic in San Francisco[1] until they were criminalized in the late 19th century.

The point is that prohibition the issue. Being more lenient while still keeping prohibition isn't a half way point, but still keeps the most harmful elements intact.

> I don't think the end goal of prohibition is zero use of said substance, but rather its control as to prevent large-scale societal disruption.

Do you think that prohibition is effectively preventing large scale societal disruption?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse