
Iron law of prohibition - luu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition
======
seibelj
Similarly, anti-prostitution activists cheer that Backpage removed adult
classifieds.[0] If you really want to prevent abuse of sex workers, you need
to legalize the trade and bring it into the open. By driving it further
underground, you just cause more harm to the people you want to save. I can't
understand how people make the same mistake over, and over, and over.

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/us/backpage-ads-sex-
traff...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/us/backpage-ads-sex-
trafficking.html)

~~~
praptak
This assumes anti-prostitution is about sex workers and not moral outrage at
sex being easily available outside marriage.

~~~
_greim_
Why can't it be about both? As far as I can tell, large-scale movements
comprise a mix of underlying motives.

------
M_Grey
The underlying issue seems to be that we confuse the empathy we should have
with victims and their families, for reverence. We spend so much time
listening to their advice, which is pro tanto going to be the most emotionally
charged advice you can get. When policy is formed through pathos, nothing good
can come of it except purely by chance.

It's not just drugs. At all levels of our justice system and society, we
confuse the need to listen to victims and respect them, with a need to let
them control policy. _Of course_ the mother of the girl who is raped and
murdered wants nothing more or less than such behavior to end. _Of course_ the
person who takes drugs and spends years in hell because of them has a very
particular view of them.

We should listen to those views, incorporate them into policy, but they should
not be the oracles of policy.

~~~
titanomachy
> Of course the person who takes drugs and spends years in hell because of
> them has a very particular view of them.

Have you talked to many recovered drug addicts? Everyone I know who has been
either addicted or seen friends go through addiction advocates for compassion
and harm reduction, not stronger prohibition.

~~~
M_Grey
I have, and I know mostly those kinds of people too. Unfortunately I also know
plenty of the other kind, the "Drugs are literally the devil" types. Having an
addiction doesn't confer wisdom, and some people get out of active addiction
however they can. For some people it's a journey back to who they always were,
but some... are very different.

When I was younger, I thought I had a real problem with marijuana (truthfully
I had a problem with being a putz), and I went to some Narcotics Anonymous
meetings. I met some great people there, some I still stay in touch with, but
I met some broken, broken people too. One guy in particular had a rough life
before addiction, and an even rougher one with it. He made it out alive, but
that's about it.

I used to call him, "The bag of Jesus man", because he always carried around a
bag _stuffed_ with religious pamphlets, papers, books, iconography, etc. This
is how he stayed off drugs, and alive, and you have to respect what he did.
You don't however, have to form policy based on his recommendations, which
were frankly alarming.

------
bjourne
It's not true in Europe at least. Amsterdam (where weed is legal) has the
strongest strains available on the continent. They are supposed to knock the
socks off even very experienced users.

Many studies like these only focus on US data and forgets about the rest of
the world so they get flawed results. The strongest alcohol you can find is
from Northern Europe and Russia, where it never has been illegal. In Islamic
countries, where it is illegal, black market alcohol isn't stronger than
anywhere else.

~~~
1_2__3
You don't offer any citations or evidence or proof for any of your claims. How
do you know what kind of alcohol is available in Islamic countries? How do you
know the pot in the Netherlands is as strong as you say (given you say "they
are supposed to..." without any evidence)?

~~~
jpatokal
Anecdata: In the Perhentian islands off the coast of Kelantan, a strictly
Muslim state in otherwise generally tolerant Malaysia, the only form of
alcohol available at most bars/restaurants is bottom-barrel Ukrainian vodka
sold under the counter. (Although I gather a few places have finally managed
to obtain actual liquor licenses since my last visit.)

------
tomohawk
The effects of prohibition are not always easy to predict, or even know in
hindsight. Many of the things people think they know about prohibition are
incorrect.

[http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-
prohibiti...](http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-
was-a-success.html)

~~~
virmundi
The analysis in that article showed little to no thought about side effects.
Sure, the mobs existed before hand, both Irish and Italian. However, they were
initial police forces for the ghettos. What prohibition did is give them a
cash infusion, which in turned allowed them to expand. The same is true in
modern times with various cartels.

As to the benefits, look at cigarettes. We haven't banded them. Instead we've
pushed the idea that they are terrible for you. We've put up graphic ads of
organs. We've had olympians with mouth cancer talk through machine. As a
result the consumption of that product is down.

Do we want to have the hamfisted power of the state come down by law on people
or do we want people to self-select and improve? Prohibition gets you the
former; indoctrination and propaganda get you the later.

------
Alex3917
Consumer Reports said basically the same thing in 1972:

[http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/CU11....](http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/CU11.html)

And that was supposedly just paraphrasing something from 1967, although I
haven't read the original.

------
maxmcd
Given this logic, it's interesting that the War On Drugs in the United States
didn't lead to earlier large-scale production of marijuana concentrates.

~~~
dredmorbius
In _Botany of Desire_ , Michael Pollan notes that the potency of marijuana
_did_ in fact increase tremendously from the 1960s through the 1990s (when the
book was written). As did the growth rate and yield, and as the time-to-
harvest fell.

Selective pressures, biological or otherwise, are ... a hell of a drug.

------
backtoyoujim
Black market drug manufacturing creates adulterated, weakened, or counterfeit
drugs that usually are transported as contraband surrounded by foreign
substances like gasoline.

During Prohibition alcohol was manufactured to include methyl in the final
product just to maim, blind or kill anyone desperate enough to drink it.

Prohibition does not make drugs hard. It makes them dirty.

~~~
armenarmen
You are halfway there. Before prohibition in America the go to drinks were
beer, cider, and wine. When prohibition came into play people were charged NOT
on how much alcohol they had on them but on the volume of the alcoholic
beverage they had. Punishment for a pint of whiskey == punishment for a pint
of beer.

So in other drug markets where it was a naive measurement (weight volume) that
ignored the active ingredient drug importers and venders are incentivized to
create stronger and stronger products as a hedge against getting busted.

Anecdotally a friend in Saudi told me that beer from the informal markets
costs more than Johnny Black.

So while you are correct that quality does fall often in illegal markets
arguing that they have no effect on the potency of drugs would be wrong

~~~
mc32
I'm going to guess that even if the punishment had been considered per qty
volume of alcohol, all but the seller to consumer would have preferred the
most efficient carrier of alcohol due to space for transport --of course, now
that they have powdered alcohol[1], my guess is they'd have chosen that.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_powder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_powder)

------
scythe
One scheme I like for the decriminalization of party drugs is to invert the
ILoD: limit the concentration and dosage forms (I was thinking a beverage) and
possibly add bitterants. People are able to dose alcohol quite well, despite a
relatively low therapeutic index (~20).

~~~
titanomachy
> possibly add bitterants

No need, most party drugs already taste disgusting.

------
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
The rise of Fentanyl, and it's more-terrifying relative Carfentanil, certainly
speaks to the increase in potency that prohibition can bring. This, combined
with the over-prescription of opioids, is a tragic injustice.

------
JshWright
This principle is why we are seeing a massive spike in Fentanyl use. It's many
times more potent than Heroin (and therefore many times more profitable).
Unfortunately, it's killing a lot of people in the process...

~~~
campers
Even scarier we're starting to see Carfentanil, which is many times stronger
again than Fentanyl, and is only used for sedation of large animals like
elephants.

------
rukuu001
A corollary to the law is that when black markets don't exist, substitution
takes place, e.g. prohibited alcohol is replaced by gasoline, glue, paint etc.

------
skybrian
I wonder what the effect would be of a mixed strategy where only the
relatively safer and lower-concentration forms of a drug are legal?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> I wonder what the effect would be of a mixed strategy where only the
> relatively safer and lower-concentration forms of a drug are legal?

The interesting solution is very high taxes, with the tax based on the amount
of the substance. Then higher concentrations have higher taxes.

The optimal tax amount is just below the amount that would cause the tax-
evading black market to be larger than the legal market. And then prosecuting
for tax evasion doesn't cost the other taxpayers anything because every
prosecution pays for itself through the back taxes and penalties, without
having to put anybody in prison.

~~~
M_Grey
We already put people into feedback loops of administrative fines, and jail.
You really think this would play out differently? Without incarceration, how
exactly do you propose to collect your money? Once you figure that out, be
sure to tell all of the parents looking to collect from deadbeats your secret,
they need it!

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The government doesn't need your cooperation to collect a tax debt. If you owe
them and you have any money or assets they just seize them, and if you don't
have any money they have your employer garnish your wages until you've paid it
off. The IRS does not screw around.

And the point is to deter people from evading taxes. If they're permanently
bankrupt you can't collect anything from them, but they also end up on
probation which means the government can search their place and finances
without a warrant. If they're stupid enough to violate their probation by
committing tax evasion _again_ , even though it's now much easier for the
government to catch them, now they can go to jail.

~~~
M_Grey
_The government doesn 't need your cooperation to collect a tax debt._

It does if they want to actually make a profit on collecting taxes. Those
"bleed the beast" pricks, extreme LDS sects, etc... all seem to have little
trouble withholding taxes. Could the government step up enforcement? Sure...
but it costs money.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Those "bleed the beast" pricks, extreme LDS sects, etc... all seem to have
> little trouble withholding taxes.

Those people live in isolation without corporate employment, use of financial
institutions or the ability to hold title to a vehicle. Hardly "little
trouble".

~~~
M_Grey
They do that for reasons that have nothing to do with not paying their
taxes... still, if you need an even ore obvious example...
[http://fortune.com/2016/04/29/tax-evasion-
cost/](http://fortune.com/2016/04/29/tax-evasion-cost/)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> They do that for reasons that have nothing to do with not paying their
> taxes...

If that's the cost of getting away with it, most people are not going to be
willing to pay it.

> still, if you need an even ore obvious example...
> [http://fortune.com/2016/04/29/tax-evasion-
> cost/](http://fortune.com/2016/04/29/tax-evasion-cost/)

That's not the enforcement cost, that's the potential revenue gain from
increased enforcement.

~~~
M_Grey
_That 's not the enforcement cost, that's the potential revenue gain from
increased enforcement._

...And more enforcement to increase revenue... costs... money.

Which was my entire point. The government requires cooperation in your taxes,
and already loses hundreds of billions to those who don't.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
You haven't made any argument to indicate that the cost of tax enforcement
would be larger than the revenue the enforcement would generate.

------
squozzer
Illegal markets also have a counterforce -- diluting quality ("cutting") makes
more product available at the same price.

------
Kinnard
Seems to apply to strong encryption.

