Why are drugs illegal? Interesting historical observations

[HateMe]

Hey all. I was thinking as I sometimes do, when say heroin was otc, how many people were using? How many were strung out?
I have a feeling that we have more people on the sidewalk on the stuff that back when it was legal.

Cocaine was in Coca Cola and Bayer as a company got off the ground from Coccaine. "New and improved!"

Typically, something is banned because govt wants it controlled. In this case, they would make money from sales tax, so what else? I went down the rabbit hole of the temperance movement, prohibition, and when that was rescinded, it was onto all the other feel good stuff. Wifes couldn't stand hubby out with the boys over a pint, or a joint, or a line.

With freshly voting women, this wasnt hard to achieve (way to go women, your first thing you do with voting was prohibition).

Another interesting parallel is how alcohol had poison in it, to keep guys from drinking it. It did not stop, leading to, in effect, the govt killing its own citizens. Percocet has tylenol in it to give a person liver damage, in order to not abuse it. Same with Percodan, to give you ulcers. There literally is no need for those combos. Just take a tylenol or aspirin on top. But, govt is great at creating problems for which is has a solution. More govt!

So I wonder what society would be like if all drugs would be legal? Would people still judge? I think no more than alcohol, having drinks or a drink or two per night, to being THAT guy, going to AA meetings and turning his 1 week chip regularly. So, NA would be there for those that go too far.

Not advocating this or that. Just an interesting thought (maybe its whatever is in my pills, but one can only play so much slitherio!). Curious what you all might think.

C

 

[Snafu in the Void]

The current incarnation of the war on drugs led to a system which created a 100 billion dollar industry. Criminalized drug use and addiction are highly profitable within a system of private prisons, outrageous healthcare cost, etc.

Beyond the trappings of capitalism, it is also about control. Nixon's chief of staff & campaign manager admitted on tape that the war on drugs was ultimately just Nixon criminalizing his political opponents, which at that time were black people and anti-war hippies (I'd rather not turn this into a political discussion, but that's what started the whole "war on drugs").

This idea was further propagated by Reagan/Bush Sr. and the whole Iran-Contra scandal. Spooks injected hundreds of thousands of kilos of cocaine into poor neighborhoods. That's not some tinfoil hat theory, that actually happened.

Overall, criminalized drug use is a tool used by the hidden people who actually run this country to manufacture and maintain poverty, a social class that accepts their poverty and have been made docile enough to accept that situation.

Should drugs be legal? That's more of a philosophical question at it's core. I think the real issue here is that addiction should not be punished as criminal activity. It is a disease, a medical issue, that needs to be treated.

Oregon recently decriminalized drug use, because this model has been highly successful in other places such as Portugal. When Portugal decriminalized, overall drug use/addiction/deaths dropped significantly.

Why didn't it work in Oregon? Because the system wasn't ready. In Portugal if you are caught with drugs you are forced into rehab. They take you to doctors. They give you therapy and support. Oregon doesn't do that because we still have a broken healthcare system. They don't punish the addicts, but they don't help them either.

Our system just isn't ready to legalize drugs, because it's set up to privately profit from it, both monetarily and politically... and this is why it costs fucking $50 for 2 doses of narcan at Walmart. It should be FREE or affordable.

 

[HateMe]

Lots of good points there. I wouldnt lay any of the blame on capitalism here. But corporatism and the corruption because politicians and the hidden wealthy figures is a big issue.

Nixon..dont get me started on him. Im a Libertarian (not the Mr Aleppo kind, more the Dont Treat on Me kind) but man..Nixon, gold std, unionizing the feds, and so many other things. Both sides are the same thing though. Woodrow WIlson wanted to sacrifice the US in favor of his visions. Not drug related though FDR was pushing crap on soldiers.

Addiction is a tough thing though. How do we define it? Where do we draw the line? Cigarettes are brutal to quit (i would say, probably harder for me at least than opiates. Ive done cold turkey Oxy, didnt sleep 17 days, as in sitting at my computer for 17 days straight, shakes, epic noncontainable diarrhea, the works). Smokes, no joy. I will find a butt and smoke that lighting it with two stones until I get a spark. Sure, WD are milder, but if I need a smoke, I will not accept no lol.

Is coffee also an addiction? And, my focus thus ended up on the 20s, and the temperance mentallity, from booze to now drugs. We still have alcoholics (though, the same karens out there want booze banned, and its how you get dry counties out west). Maybe Im on a misogyny bend, which is possible, thus asking the question. From the years of being a lurker, I see way more rational conversations here that in general public.

Heck, at one point was thinking of running for office (though not sure Im sociopathic enough lol). One thing we need, which is more cultural at its roots is responsibility. Sure, a person may disagree with this or that, or be against something, but, if it doesnt affect them, why butt in? Let people live how they see fit, with the consequences too. You can give your advice, opinion, but banning things is how you create black markets. From drugs, to guns, to non EPA compliant mufflers.

But, the philosophy of it is interesting. And while I call out the 20s a lot, I know there are other times in history where chemicals were banned. Im fairly sure in the Ottoman empire, alcohol was banned long before for religious reasons. No issue with opium smoking. And again, they were smoking the good stuff, pure, and I cant say I know of any well known anecdotes of figures or anyone that was strung out, lost it all, etc.

So def a societal problem, though solving it is a different and bigger issue. I personally dont think govt can fix this, but rather more a cultural thing, even more so now, as the culture is swinging right. Even if I am on that side, I def dont want to go back to the de-metal-ing days, the satan scare of the 90s and all that BS. Same with other things. The last thing we need is prohibition on booze and porn, but now Im in the weeds.

 

[snmfmy]

Lots of good points there. I wouldnt lay any of the blame on capitalism here. But corporatism and the corruption because politicians and the hidden wealthy figures is a big issue.

But it is capitalism because corporate America politicians and hidden wealthy figures don't make money from drug prohibition.

Dealers and Narco crime Lords Who are the epitome of capitalists make the Lions share of money due to drug prohibition.

You can argue that companies who support the prison industry in the United States benefit from drug prohibition and that has some truth but, they would profit from people being incarcerated for any reason.

And there's actually no evidence that the CIA conspired to inject thousands of kilos of cocaine into inner city black neighborhoods that has been debunked by multiple inspector General reports from inside and outside the CIA.

Did they ignore the fact that Nicaragua was trafficking cocaine throughout Central America and bringing some into the US? Absolutely !

Did they actively conspire and aid Importation of cocaine into the United States as well as help to ignite the crack cocaine epidemic in inner city America? absolutely not!