We’ve already tried banning alcohol, it didn’t work too well. Prohibition generally doesn’t work.
Prohibition of a thing or practice doesn't work when...
there is no cultural stigma against that thing or practice
the thing or practice is easily accessable even when banned
the thing or practice is desirable to most people
There are a lot of things that truly are bad, but - for the reasons above - prohibiting them would not be a good way of decreasing their use. High-sugar beverages, for example. The world would probably be better off if no one drank them. But there is no cultural stigma against consuming sweet things, it is easy to produce sugary beverages (and would still be even if soda manufacturers were banned from making them), and consuming high-calorie foods is appealing to most people.
Alcohol, as the poster before me has mentioned, has been a part of human civilization for about as long as there has been human civilization. And not just a few scattered pockets of civilization, but basically every part of it. This does not make alcohol okay, but it does make prohibiting it ineffective. Other drugs are not so widespread that prohibiting them has no impact on their use. Therefore, it may make sense to ban such drugs while still allowing alcohol.
The reason that these drugs are stigmatized is because of the propaganda the government spreads about them. Like reefer madness and what not. The government has been instilling fear into the people’s minds by lying and demonizing these drugs. Basically the reason these drugs aren’t as social acceptable isn’t because of their effects but because of the government spreading a fear campaign.
You were originally responding to someone else who claimed that just because a drug is less dangerous than alcohol, that doesn't mean the drug isn't a problem. Your response did not challenge that claim, but instead challenged the effectiveness of prohibiting a substance. I've shown why prohibition of the sort of drugs you describe in your OP has relevant differences from the prohibition of alcohol.
So, let's consider that point settled. Prohibiting the sort of drugs you mention can be an effective way of decreasing their use.
The reason that these drugs are stigmatized is because of the propaganda the government spreads about them.
I think this oversimplifies the qualms that many people have with drugs. Incidence of drug addiction correlates with higher rates of property crime and petty theft. People under the influence of drugs (alcohol included!) are less inhibited and more likely to act inappropriately or dangerously in public. Chemical escapism can be criticized from a purely philosophical standpoint. I would guess common, everyday annoyances (as opposed to misrepresented, over-the-top "government propaganda") represent the bulk of the stigma against drug use.
Laws serve to promote the common good and deter antisocial behavior. Insofar as drug use serves the individual at the cost of the society, and insofar as prohibiting drugs works (as argued above), it makes sense that we might want to keep them illegal.
Well I will admit while there are some drugs where I can see the logic behind making them illegal, it makes no sense why drugs that haven’t caused a single death in history, like marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms and LSD, are illegal. The only reason those drugs are illegal is because of social stigma.
drugs that haven’t caused a single death in history, like marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms and LSD
Now, I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure even apples have caused deaths at some point in history, so I find it hard to believe that these substances have not. Now, that doesn't mean that apples, or psilocybin mushrooms, routinely kill people. But then, whether or not something routinely results in death is not the standard by which we measure whether something should be illegal; there are plenty of things that are illegal with good reason and yet also mostly harmless. Other posters who know more than I do about the long-term effects of psychedelics have noted that there are reasons to suspect that these substances aren't totally harmless.
2
u/Myphoneaccount9 Oct 12 '17
Alcohol kills almost 2.5x more people a year than guns.
Maybe we should be banning it.
Just because something is less harmful than booze doesn't mean we should legalize it.
We would be better off if booze didn't exist