Prompted by “Prohibition Kills”: https://reason.com/archives/2015/10/05/prohibition-kills
The prompting piece is worth reading, but here’s my synopsis and additional take on the issue.
Remember the guy who bought 80-proof vodka that turned out to be 190-proof Everclear and died from alcohol poisoning? Probably not, because that sort of thing almost never happens in a legal drug market, where merchants or manufacturers who made such a substitution, whether deliberately or accidentally, would face potentially ruinous economic and legal consequences. In a black market, by contrast, customers frequently get something different from what they thought they were buying: something weaker, something stronger, or some other substance entirely. As The Washington Post notes in a recent story about fentanyl-laced heroin, the results can be fatal. […]
It may not even be accurate to call uncertainty about the contents of black-market drugs an unintended consequence of prohibition, since it serves prohibitionists’ avowed goal of discouraging drug consumption. After all, the more dangerously unpredictable drugs are, the less likely people are to use them. That calculation, of course, sacrifices the interests, and sometimes the lives, of undeterred drug users for the sake of protecting more risk-averse people from their own bad decisions. But that is what prohibition is all about. […]
Although such fatalities are commonly called “drug-related deaths,” they are more appropriately viewed as prohibition-related deaths. The artificially high prices and profits created by prohibition give dealers a strong incentive to dilute their products, and the black market’s lack of legal accountability allows them to do so. […]
Prohibition created the hazard of unpredictable potency, and enforcing prohibition, to the extent that it has any effect at all, exacerbates the problem. Drug warriors commonly cite lower potency as a sign of success, equivalent to an increase in price for heroin of the same strength.
Proponents for Certain Drug Prohibition have never provided concrete evidence proving we live in even a slightly more “drug free” America as a result of taxpayers spending billions of dollars annually to allow public servants to blatantly infringe upon unalienable rights on the outrageously ridiculous basis that the Commerce Clause in the Constitution allows such hellish destruction to supposedly send the right message to children. Those proponents failed to even create a “drug free” prison system, which is a powerfully key point apparently never reported by the mainstream media.
Markets fluctuate for many reasons, so the idea that lower potency is a sign of prohibition success is uncertain (if not tragically laughable) and a weak basis for sustaining Certain Drug Prohibition. But since there’s no challenge by the mainstream media regarding effectiveness (nonetheless constitutionality, destructiveness, and scientific legitimacy), that outright scam continues with terrible consequences against public safety (presented ironically in the mainstream as protecting the public).
The prompting piece legitimately cites the dangers of unpredictable product potency (etc.), but the public majority has effectively made it painfully clear that they excessively could not care less about a dangerous market for heroin (etc.) users/abusers (they’re not victims, but criminals that deserve what they self-destructively get), so I’m (actually our Respect Cannabis campaign is) focusing upon the failure of prohibition to meet its proponents’ goals with ample destruction against the public (not just illicit drug users/abusers).
Moreover, our campaign healthily works and relaxes to provide actual education to prevent drug abuse (including alcohol and other legal drugs), while understanding that drug use clearly falls in line with an unalienable right to liberty.
Militaristic folks (too many supporting Certain Drug Prohibition) insist upon strict order for efficiency and competence. I do too when appropriate and that’s applicable to communication itself. There’s no doubt that harm is the only proper basis for law, because to define risk by law is to inevitably define liberty by law (which conflicts with an unalienable right to liberty) — an enormous elephant being ignored in the national room.
Confusing the situation is the muddy (disorderly) definition of use and abuse. I believe that strict order (and responsibly sharp communication) effectively demands that use be a harmless act, while abuse be a harmful one. That hard-line greatly facilitates communicating that key distinction towards effective law for public safety, so there’s no good reason for linguists (and the rest of society) to lazily prefer the mud (e.g. substance use disorder, using someone, etc.) As communication is obviously key in education, that greatness amplifies the strength of education itself (the only risk management solution legitimately possible in a nation with an unalienable right to liberty). That hard-line is needed to teach people the difference between use and abuse in any activity, so that hard-line must be promptly publicly recognized.
Instead, prohibitionists are publicly allowed to continuously interchange the words use and abuse merely to their convenience (which they always do) and consequently confuse the public into supporting their prohibition (e.g. the horrors of extreme abuse equals all use). It’s a classic case of serious reason abuse (the real drug-related harm).
Balance is needed for stability.
Abuse is compensation for imbalance.
Imbalance is unhealthy stress.
Prohibition exacerbates unhealthy stress, so exacerbates (inclusively drug) abuse.
Prohibition is not a solution for the public, but a solution for people generating ample resources and other forms of power from Certain Drug Prohibition. That prohibition is a vicious circle that serves its proponents, and since those proponents are in the area of government (consistent providers of newsworthy information about tragic events), the mainstream media supports them clearly against their journalism code of ethics. It’s a scam (spanning several decades) against everything our nation is supposed to be about (opposition against law abuse — the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction, and the form igniting the American Revolution), and the public is still largely unaware of its monstrous negativity.
The most important human imbalance these days basically never mentioned in the mainstream is the one between a work ethic and a relaxation ethic. Humanity comes from the excessive drive to work for progress, while relaxation is still too often considered taking a break from progress, so basically everyone works more and relaxes less.
Since the human body relies upon relaxation to optimally heal itself, relaxation is undeniably productive. Balance being stabilizing and relaxation being productive means that society is guilty of excessive (inclusively drug) abuse, because the ample unhealthy stress upon society from that imbalance (e.g. people working two jobs to make ends meet) is the primary cause of that abuse. Instead of honorably holding themselves accountable (while doing their best to remedy that monstrous imbalance), our “community leaders” instead point to the existence of inanimate objects (drugs, guns, etc.) as the ultimate source of abuse and insist that more rights-infringing government power is needed.
That power forms more unhealthy stress (taking precious taxpayer resources, ruining families by ruining individuals by “criminal justice”, etc.), which gives the government continuous fuel to keep that “abuse solution” running strongly for themselves.
As you can see, Certain Drug Prohibition is not just about the minority of people persecuted for using/abusing certain drugs (the so-called “right to get high”).
Certain Drug Prohibition exemplifies the fundamental national flaws that constitute serious public warnings still idiotically ignored by too many people. The result is serious unhealthy stress inundating society to resonate even more unhealthy stress (as evident by the serious burden upon our healthcare system).
While Respect Cannabis focuses upon lawfully improving intentional perception alteration (so lightly touches upon relevant law), our Liberty Shield entertainment (including education) project serves to bring scientific constitutionalism (bringing the scientific method to form more certainty in language and therefore law) to the public as the necessary remedy to resolve those flaws — including factually proving that Certain Drug Prohibition cannot possibly be law in the United States of America (the blatantly illegal judicial redefining of the Commerce Clause from “regulate commerce” to ‘regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce’ — factually according to the public record and the English language — be justly damned among other certainties needed to form a strong Constitution incapable of being violated by law abuse).
Objectivity (conclusive, not suggestive, science) is needed in law, because part of the definition of justice is fairness, and there’s no fairness without objectivity.
Do you agree?