229
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Chestrade@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

Banning drugs or alcohol has never worked. The demand will still be there. People will turn to the black market instead if it gets banned.

[-] Melkath@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

There is a whole arc in the Battlestar Galactica reboot series that masterfully illustrates this topic.

[-] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 years ago

Yeah, which is why illegal drugs have more users than legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco). Except they don't.

[-] papalonian@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Their argument was that banning cigarettes wouldn't eliminate their use, only drive people to continue doing it through other methods.

What does your comment have to do with that..? Nobody said there would somehow be more users than before, just that people would continue doing it..

[-] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago

My argument is that since illegal drugs have significantly fewer users, prohibition does reduce usage.

[-] papalonian@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

That logic doesn't flow, though. You need to compare number of current illegal users vs number of users before it was illegal.

Have you heard of the US prohibition on alcohol? It's a pretty famous counterexample to your argument showing that it absolutely does not reduce usage.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The same number of people, as a percentage, smoke marijuana as smoke cigarettes. Marijuana use is federally illegal and illegal in most states.

So no, it really doesn't reduce usage. Price and perceived risk are the two factors that reduce usage the most.

[-] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago

I don't know about the USA, but I see tobacco smokers every day and very rarely see marijuana smokers.

[-] papalonian@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Most people smoking weed aren't just doing it out in the open like tobacco users

[-] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago

Well, then the prohibition has pretty much fulfilled its purpose.

[-] papalonian@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

When the government makes something illegal, they don't do it in hopes of millions of people doing it anyways in private.

[-] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago

Maybe not for other laws, but it makes sense for drugs. The important thing is that people should have the right to breathe non-poisonous air, and forcing smokers to hide their smoking achieves that.

[-] stonedemoman@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

This ban is on the sale of menthol infused cigarettes. It wouldn't criminalize smoking menthols and there's plenty of other ways to infuse cigarettes with menthol or buy a synthetic alternative.

If your point is at all that this prohibition would in any way, shape, or form help fulfill that goal, that is incorrect.

[-] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago

If you read the comment chain, we've been talking about drug prohibition in general, not this specific ban.

[-] stonedemoman@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I've read the comment chain, it just seemed like you were implying that this ban would achieve some kind of beneficial outcome.

It's fine if I'm wrong, that's okay. I'll take that loss. That's not my point. I just think this ban has no positive effects whatsoever and I'm just hoping people realize that if true.

this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
229 points (100.0% liked)

Mildly Interesting

26480 readers
320 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS