Prohibition has a very low success rate in reforming people who are affected by these laws. As most of you know, alcohol was once prohibited in the United States, and it failed miserably. Later, certain recreational drugs were prohibited in the same way that alcohol once was. I know many people who have been arrested and jailed for possession of illegal substances, but I've never heard of a case of anyone quitting these substances because they got arrested. I'll explain why I think this is.
What is a law? What incentive is there to not break a law? I believe that there are two main factors.
1. Punishments may be issued if caught.
In regard to #1, the phrase "it's not illegal if you don't get caught" applies 100%. Anyone who makes a decision to use illegal substances knows that they will not be caught if they use responsibly. Everyone plans to use them responsibly, it's just that sometimes they get caught by accident. In regard to factor #1, the law is not "do not use drugs." People can use drugs for several years with a 0% chance of getting caught if they are responsible enough. Instead, the law is really "do not get caught using drugs," which is what I believe these laws really teach people.
2. Breaking the law is immoral.
In the case of self-consenting usage of illegal substances, it is simply not immoral. It may be harmful to oneself, which may provide incentive to quit usage. However, the harm itself is the incentive; not the law.
In regard to #1, the phrase "it's not illegal if you don't get caught" applies 100%. Anyone who makes a decision to use illegal substances knows that they will not be caught if they use responsibly. Everyone plans to use them responsibly, it's just that sometimes they get caught by accident. In regard to factor #1, the law is not "do not use drugs." People can use drugs for several years with a 0% chance of getting caught if they are responsible enough. Instead, the law is really "do not get caught using drugs," which is what I believe these laws really teach people.
2. Breaking the law is immoral.
In the case of self-consenting usage of illegal substances, it is simply not immoral. It may be harmful to oneself, which may provide incentive to quit usage. However, the harm itself is the incentive; not the law.
So, rather than these laws providing incentive not to use or possess illegal substances, I feel that they instead only pointlessly punish the users. The only way that a law against drugs will stop people from using drugs, is if they believe in a third premise.
3. Breaking the law is immoral because it is against the law.
This really depends on everyone's personal beliefs. I suppose that some people may believe that #3 is true, but I would like to see their reasons for believing so.
This really depends on everyone's personal beliefs. I suppose that some people may believe that #3 is true, but I would like to see their reasons for believing so.
In addition to the fact that such laws punish people with little or no probability of making them change their ways, there are other dangerous consequences of prohibition. For one, they provide funds for illegal businesses. Street gangs and cartels make a very profitable business out of selling illegal substances, that would otherwise be profitless. Also, when such substances are illegal, there is a greater chance of the substances being laced or poorly made, which can lead to death, poisoning, or serious injury with such substances, that would otherwise not matter had the substances been for legal sale.
Thoughts, everyone?