The Shotgun Blog
« The unending battle for true free trade | Main | The Mexican labour trade war »
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Violent gangs prosper due to criminalized drugs
The Toronto Sun reported that drugs has been identified as the number one revenue source for organized crime. This is not really a surprise, but it is good to have information that backs up common wisdom.
The same report goes on to talk about the successes against the Hell's Angels, but then points out that the black market is thriving anyway. It seems that no matter how many drug dealers are arrested, someone always rises to take their place. The explanation is simple, the product is demanded and someone will always be there to provide the supply.
It always amazes me that people, especially politicians, think that the market can be controlled. As if the market was some sort of leviathan that lives outside of humanity. The market is humanity, individuals acting and interacting in the real world. There is no force in existence that can control that.
The results of trying to control the market are usually disastrous. The government declares that you cannot purchase or sell marijuana. Therefore the government gives the marijuana trade over to those that live outside the law; to violent and often brutal predators. These predators then build empires off the profits that the government has all but guaranteed for them.
The solution is simple: legalize.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on August 8, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
what? no zebulon spouting feces about how we just need a more obedient populace and more jails and stricter dads - i mean cops.
must be sleeping in....
Posted by: Russell Barth | 2009-08-09 4:14:13 AM
We had organized crime before illegal drugs and we have organized crime after drugs are legalized.
The government cannot make money from legalized pot because it is so easy to grow. There is no incentive for them to legalize it because it would be impossible to tax it.
Posted by: Floyd Looney | 2009-08-09 8:58:30 AM
Yes gangs existed before and will after, but the resources and size of those gangs would be far less. Consider that the strength of the mafia came from prohibition.
A good book that touches on the effect of the drug trade on gangster life: City of God
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2009-08-09 9:17:41 AM
How would "legalization" do anything but encourage organized crime? If it is as serious a problem as it appears, then every means must be employed to defeat them.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-09 9:27:14 AM
How would "legalization" do anything but encourage organized crime?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-09 9:27:14 AM
Explain please, how legalization would encourage crime.
And you'll never defeat them...can't be done.
Unless of course we become a total police state.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-09 10:15:57 AM
I don't accept an "either-or" analysis like that. Organized crime CAN and HAS been defeated, or at least reduced to a shallow figure of itself (i.e. John Gotti). Neither involved becoming a "police state" by any definition, not even that of the Trudeauist Dictatorship. Keep up the good fight against the criminal element.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-09 11:02:17 AM
Sorry but evidence is lacking to confirm this claim. I agree with the concept of cause and effect, but illegal drugs are not the cause of gangs. But with this type of thinking, we could just legalise everything and anything, including rape, theft, and murder, in order to eliminate crime completely.
You may or may support legalising certain drugs, but please find a more persuading argument to support your case.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-09 12:00:44 PM
Alain there are mountains of evidence to support this claim. Including the example of Spain and the end of prohibition.
Saying that this argument is the same as legalizing rape and murder is a straw man argument. You have to keep in mind that dealing drugs is every bit as violent as dealing pizza. The violence associated with the drug trade is due to drugs being illegal. If we as a society are more concerned with violence than drug dealing, than the obvious solution it to legalize.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2009-08-09 1:11:19 PM
Alain there are mountains of evidence to support this claim. Including the example of Spain and the end of prohibition.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2009-08-09 1:11:19 PM
Is it illegal to buy and sell marijuana in Spain?
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-08-09 1:53:50 PM
Alain,
Prohibition of alcohol was the single greatest building block for many crime families. When that same prohibition was lifted the murder rate in the US dropped by 50% in just a few months.
Coincidence?
And Zeb, you apparently are unable to "explain" how legalization would "encourage" crime. Perhaps its just a feeling you have...an emotion of some kind...
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-09 2:10:15 PM
Hugh and JC, you both are missing the point. That is that legalising drugs will not eliminate nor deter gangs, since they are not the cause of gangs. Gangs will continue with other equally violent activities, such as extortion for "protection". By the way serious crime in Spain has not decreased one bit, so this is not proof of anything. I suggest you look into the causes for the existence of such gangs.
If you want to promote the legalisation of drugs, then find a different argument.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-09 2:24:17 PM
Spain is a recent example of a country that has legalized and is experiencing positive results.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2009-08-09 2:24:19 PM
I did not claim for a moment that legalizing would end all organized crime. What it would do is take away one of the most important revenue source. There will still be others, but the profits and gain of being a gangster would be much less.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2009-08-09 2:36:01 PM
Floyd,
So based on your logic, the government should go back to prohibition for products like alcohol, tabaco and pills...?
Posted by: Marc | 2009-08-09 2:39:58 PM
I'm curious: why did Emery sell seeds to US customers? Was he a) completely oblivious to the legal implications of his actions, given the authority of the DEA and extradition laws, b) using his product too much or c) doing it deliberately to provoke a debate on the issue? I'd believe any of the above.
If it were the last, he's a million times stupider than previously believed because it backfired horribly. He's not some sort of innocent victim - he has a direct financial interest in his issue and has repeatedly - even proudly - been arrested multiple times. I hope he enjoys his time in prison - nancy boys like him get special attention.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-09 3:54:13 PM
Spain is a recent example of a country that has legalized and is experiencing positive results.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2009-08-09 2:24:19 PM
That is incorrect. Buying and selling of marijuana is illegal. Personal consumption and home cultivation have been decriminalized.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-08-09 4:09:22 PM
"I'm curious: why did Emery sell seeds to US customers?"-Zebulon Pike
why does that matter? he didn't do anything his own country wants to prosecute him for, fuck the states, if a Canadian orders a gun over the internet the canadian government doesn't try to arrest smith and wesson they arrest the person in their own country ordering it. the DEA has absolutely no business in Canada, I'm tired of emuricans bullying Canada, if you agree with this mockery of justice your as dumb as the emuricans(i know how to spell thats just how they pronounce it), EVERY CANADIAN, POTHEAD OR NOT SHOULD STAND BEHIND A FELLOW CITIZEN THAT IS BEING UNJUSTLY PROSECUTED BY A COUNTRY THEYVE NEVER BEEN TO, should we send Tibet protesters over to china to be prosecuted as well? why not Zebulon Pike by your retarded logic we should, your dumb, shane matthews is dumb 419 is your moron ringleader and you all blow bush
Posted by: youre f*cked 419 + Shane is a moron | 2009-08-09 4:52:30 PM
Hugh and JC, you both are missing the point.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-09 2:24:17 PM
Perhaps I am missing a point, but so are you.
I don't believe that legalizing pot will make gangs go away. I do believe it will starve them of a percentage of their income.
That and cut back on the number of people incarcerated for a basically victimless crime.
I'm not interested in promoting drug use, I'm interested in moral law.
If we really wanted to see an end to gang problems, we would implement a "justice" system that punishes crime severely and allows private citizens to respond to direct threats with deadly force.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-09 4:54:20 PM
Emery is no innocent victim. He deliberately chose to provoke a confrontation with the authorities, US or Canadian (and one cannot break US law from abroad and expect to get away with it; ask hackers and child pornographers). No major issue is at stake beyond his own economic self-interest. He's using you people to evade responsibility for his actions. He should have been smarter about this. Instead he'll suffer in jail for several years, and has no one to blame but himself.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-09 5:21:22 PM
Zeb, I have personally heard Marc Emery say that if you want to change a law you have to break it.
So I guess he'll get what he bargained for. I don't think its right, but it is the law as we now know it.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-09 6:35:40 PM
JC: he should have limited his activities to Canada. The DEA are not your friends. Their reputation as heavy-handed law enforcers is well deserved. I think he did it deliberately to get attention. Well, he got it, and now he'll pay a very heavy price for his activism. I think he'll regret it.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-09 8:03:43 PM
Well, he got it, and now he'll pay a very heavy price for his activism. I think he'll regret it.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-09 8:03:43 PM
Think you're right. The boys in Walla Walla might not have much respect for his celebrity status.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-09 9:29:33 PM
Emery knew or did not care who he was selling seeds to anymore than the guy who sells kiddie porn. Emery made a profit off of selling pot seeds that would then be turned into pot plants.
I have no sympathy for him what so ever.
Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2009-08-10 12:35:11 AM
Merle that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard anyone say about Marc Emery. How can you possibly claim that it is similar in any way to selling child pornography?
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2009-08-10 1:13:36 AM
the troll zebulon just does this to instigate. It has no valid points to make except that pot is evil, users are stupid, and we should all obey our government and get more cops to force more people to obey cops.
One can only assume that this tire, weak little punk is a cop, a security guard, or border patrol. More likely, he is some loser whose dad or brother is a cop, and he is all jealous and admiring of them.
It is sad that nimrods too chicken to use their real names on line are allowed to get into adult conversations.
Posted by: Russell Barth | 2009-08-10 3:25:09 AM
Actually what I find amusing is the circular logic. "Drug users should go to jail!", they state. Why is that? "Well, because they're illegal." Indeed, what can one possible answer to such flawless logic ...
Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-10 5:51:40 AM
Just caught a blip on an elevator "Capivad".
The Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada still lists illegal drugs as the highest source of income for organized crime.
Hmmm...maybe if you cut off "most" of their income they wouldn't be so proliferate?
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-10 6:15:07 AM
'The Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada still lists illegal drugs as the highest source of income for organized crime'.
What's being left out is that 'illegal' drugs are also the highest source of income for Canada's biggest gang- the POLICE.
Both Police and Organized Crime do not want to end Drug Prohibition.
Their paycheques depend upon it.
Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-08-10 6:41:11 AM
Floyd Looney:
"The government cannot make money from legalized pot because it is so easy to grow. There is no incentive for them to legalize it because it would be impossible to tax it."
If everyone would just grow their own, why do medical marijuana dispensaries in California do such gangbusters business? They sell expensive pot to people who could legally grow their own. Only a small fraction of California's pot smokers have medical marijuana cards and are allowed to go to these shops. If any adult could go to them more would go to the pot shops where they can select from a wide variety of quality product.
When large scale commercial production is legalized, corporate farmers will take over and the price of pot will drop through the floor. There will be all sorts of room for high taxes before the cost to consumers is anywhere close to what it is today. At licensed "pot stores" people would be buying product produced in a regulated industry. They wouldn't have to worry about toxic insecticides or mold inhibitors or anything like that being used on the product right before harvest. They wouldn't have to worry the product they are buying might be produced by vicious drug gangs or cartels.
Pot smokers are going to want to buy at nice clean stores where they can select from a wide variety of quality product. Commercial producers will produce product with distinguishing characteristics - taste, smell, etc., and consumers will end up with favorite brands. There really shouldn't be much more of a black market than there is with alcohol.
Posted by: Jack | 2009-08-10 9:48:57 AM
Jack- The black market will be in sales to underage users, just like it is for booze and cigarettes.
Most bootlegged booze is bought legally, then sold illegally. Pot would likely be the same. Legal users would buy from legal sources, then re-sell it to minors, and others who have been prohibited. Dealers who grow their own would be about as common as bootleggers who distil their own moonshine.
Posted by: dp | 2009-08-10 10:34:38 AM
"Jack- The black market will be in sales to underage users, just like it is for booze and cigarettes."
Do teens buy their beer from drug dealers who sell cocaine and LSD and other dangerous illegal drugs? If pot was sold through licensed "pot stores" sort of like liquor stores, teens would still get pot, but they'd have older friends or relatives buy it for them or use fake IDs to get it rather than buying it from drug dealers who also sell far worse drugs.
Posted by: Jack | 2009-08-10 12:06:39 PM
Hugh, you keep on flogging the same horse carcass, without offering anything new that might affect all the arguments that have been made before. There are no new facts here. Let us know when you find some.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-10 1:41:08 PM
"what? no zebulon spouting feces about how we just need a more obedient populace and more jails and stricter dads - i mean cops."
Spoken like a dyed-in-the-wool crook, Russell. It's one thing to question a law one considers bad, but you question the whole concept of authority, in which case no law except a law that abolishes all law could possibly make you happy.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-10 1:42:54 PM
"Consider that the strength of the mafia came from prohibition."
Actually, the strength of the Mafia come from the fact that they had such a diverse crime portfolio. Racketeering, loan sharking, extortion, labour union infiltration, fencing; bootlegging was just another wrinkle, if one of the more profitable ones.
It's worth noting that the Mafia's heyday endured well into the 1960s, and that until their strength began to crumble, they refused to touch drug sales. Ironic that the criminals of yesteryear should have a stronger moral fibre than many potheads and their dealers today.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-10 1:49:14 PM
"Explain please, how legalization would encourage crime. And you'll never defeat them...can't be done. Unless of course we become a total police state."
Which describes pretty much any country to the right of the Netherlands, JC, in your book. You'll never defeat crime in general, not completely. However, it is possible to minimize it. And minimizing the number of Canadians who wander around in a stoner's daze is well worth the effort.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-10 1:52:31 PM
"I don't believe that legalizing pot will make gangs go away. I do believe it will starve them of a percentage of their income."
But since that income is bestowed upon them by willing customers, what concern is that of yours? Isn't that the market at work?
"That and cut back on the number of people incarcerated for a basically victimless crime."
Save us this tired talking point, JC; it doesn't hold water. In this country where dealers and growers can expect to not spend even a day in jail for the first and even subsequent offences, do you really expect us to believe that there are naive undergrads in the tens of thousands pining away in penitentiaries for passing a joint?
"I'm not interested in promoting drug use, I'm interested in moral law."
Morality as defined by who? Most people consider drug use an immoral act. Even if they do it themselves, they know they really shouldn't, especially considering that it's a blood product.
"If we really wanted to see an end to gang problems, we would implement a "justice" system that punishes crime severely and allows private citizens to respond to direct threats with deadly force."
Now you're talking. Still, there aren't too many pro-pot types who are also strong law-and-order types. As far as the mainstream is concerned you're reduced to picking one or the other. I choose the latter. How about you?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-10 2:03:14 PM
"How can you possibly claim that it is similar in any way to selling child pornography?"
First, child pornography is also "victimless" in that in most cases it does no direct harm to the child. Emotional harm often results, but this is purely subjective and, to be frank, using drugs also causes emotional problems (or exacerbates existing ones).
Second, Marc Emery doesn't care who ends up smoking his product. If some kid starts smoking and screws up his mental development, he's perfectly okay with that. He knows much of his ultimate clientele consists of underage youth.
And third, don't forget that Emery has sold illegal pornography himself--and fought in court for his "right" to do so.
Open your eyes, Hugh. Marc Emery is no hero. He's a malignant narcissist and a criminal with several convictions under his belt. And the only reason he's surrendering now is so he can get a lesser sentence, because he knows that if he fought the process, he'd stand a reasonable chance of dying in prison.
It's one thing to say you're ready to be a martyr. It's another to actually martyr yourself. In the end, the thing most people on both sides of the debate will remember is that he chickened out.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-10 2:08:24 PM
"If everyone would just grow their own, why do medical marijuana dispensaries in California do such gangbusters business?"
Maybe because they don't want to go through the licensing rigmarole and end up in yet another government database.
"When large scale commercial production is legalized, corporate farmers will take over and the price of pot will drop through the floor."
And the supply of illegal pot to jurisdictions where it remains illegal will go through the roof, pissing off a lot of countries. Oh, and legalizing dope would require the repudiation of several international treaties.
"Pot smokers are going to want to buy at nice clean stores where they can select from a wide variety of quality product."
Pot smokers will buy from anyone. Their willingness to buy from criminals proves this. They're not a discerning bunch.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-10 2:11:07 PM
"Both Police and Organized Crime do not want to end Drug Prohibition. Their paycheques depend upon it."
Does anyone know how to insert a MIDI file of the "X-Files" theme in this thread?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-10 2:12:05 PM
"If pot was sold through licensed "pot stores" sort of like liquor stores, teens would still get pot, but they'd have older friends or relatives buy it for them or use fake IDs to get it rather than buying it from drug dealers who also sell far worse drugs."
Jack, do you have proof that legalizing pot would result in less use of stronger drugs, or is this just an idea you have? Narcotics addiction was a social scourge before anyone had ever heard of marijuana, you know.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-10 2:13:36 PM
And minimizing the number of Canadians who wander around in a stoner's daze is well worth the effort.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-10 1:52:31 PM
Absolutely!
No matter how many rights the rest of us lose in the process right? Zeig Heil!
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-10 2:19:13 PM
Shane if I am repeating myself it is only because your responses are ignoring my points. Socrates couldn't convince you that you are wrong. Not because you aren't but because you don't listen.
I child pornographer is doing harm to the child while smoker is only doing harm to themself. That is the first painfully obvious difference. The second painfully obvious difference is that a child cannot be a consenting adult.
As for Emery not caring about other people harming themselves, plenty of products harm people. Weed is not different than cigerates, alchohol, or even fatty food.
He sold pornography from his book store I believe. He was objecting to absurd laws that restricted free speech. This was not child pornography, please get a grip.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2009-08-10 2:26:53 PM
"But since that income is bestowed upon them by willing customers, what concern is that of yours? Isn't that the market at work?"
No Shane, those are the consequences of attempting to prevent individuals from entering into a consensual transaction.
"Morality as defined by who?"
You really don't get it do you? No one grants us our natural rights, we are born with them. You have the right to your morality, but you have no right to violate someone's natural rights to enforce your morality on that person. At this point, I find it absurd to describe to you what a natural right is.
"Still, there aren't too many pro-pot types who are also strong law-and-order types."
Or so you assume. If there were strong laws in this country that protected one's natural right to defend oneself, for example, you wouldn't find quite as many drug addicts harassing people on the street.
“Narcotics addiction was a social scourge before anyone had ever heard of marijuana, you know.”
Shane. Question: was there ever a time where drugs were legal in the U.S.? Was there more or less drug abuse in those days as opposed to today?
“Jack, do you have proof that legalizing pot would result in less use of stronger drugs, or is this just an idea you have?”
That’s right. He just pulled it out of his arse. It was called prohibition. During those years, it was only profitable to sell the really hard stuff, so there was less alcohol consumed, but more binging (a pretty dangerous habit). There is no reason to think that it is any different for drugs.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-10 3:00:17 PM
"Jack, do you have proof that legalizing pot would result in less use of stronger drugs, or is this just an idea you have?"
I didn't claim that it would result in less use of stronger drugs, although I think that might very well happen. Millions fewer people would be participating in the black market for illegal drugs where all the others are sold. I'd much rather that pot smokers buy their product at licensed shops rather than from drug dealers who sell much worse drugs, and in the case of teens I'd rather they get their pot like they get their beer rather than from drug dealers that sell much worse drugs.
Posted by: Jack | 2009-08-10 3:28:08 PM
"The solution is simple: legalize. "
The solution isn't legalization, that actually creates more laws, the solution is to repeal prohibition so there is no law.
The drug wars is a huge source of violence. End the drug war, a lot of the violence will be ended as well.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-10 3:39:28 PM
Scott,
Since anything that is not made illegal is automatically legal, to legalize is to stop making something illegal. That is, to legalize is to repeal a section of the legal code.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2009-08-10 4:12:50 PM
"No matter how many rights the rest of us lose in the process right? Zeig Heil!"
Uh huh. Perhaps you would care to tell us exactly which of your Charter rights is being compromised here? Or was invoking Godwin's Law the best you could do?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-10 5:34:05 PM
Oh Dear. Shane Matthews is back in his usual condenscending, holier than thou, puritanical busy body role.
Rather than offer any kind of relevant info. related to the effects of Prohibition, Shane continues to spout the disproven theories of his USA DEA handlers and their Kow Tower CRAP'ers.
Poor Shane, perhaps a drink of whatever that Calgary Cement Truck Driver was drinking prior to killing 5 innocent people might assauge his anger.
Or perhaps whatever that person who killed those 4 Ontario Grannies was drinking.
As usual, Shane does provide some much needed comic relief whilst confirming that:
better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
In between shots and beers, Shane Puritanical Matthews may want to consider that:
'The continued prohibition of cannabis jeopardizes the health and well-being of Canadians MUCH MORE than does the substance itself'.
Want bourbon, want scotch, want beer.
Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-08-10 5:36:05 PM
"Shane if I am repeating myself it is only because your responses are ignoring my points."
Or because you are ignoring my replies to them. Your points are not convincing.
"Socrates couldn't convince you that you are wrong. Not because you aren't but because you don't listen."
I could say the same, Hugh, could I not?
"I child pornographer is doing harm to the child while smoker is only doing harm to themself."
Ooh, it hurt not to play the grammar czar on that one. Drug users seldom affect only themselves; marijuana smells like a skunk that's been kicked--then shot. And what harm, exactly, is done to the child?
"The second painfully obvious difference is that a child cannot be a consenting adult."
But that's only a moral convention, isn't it? Granted, that a child has immature judgement is a fact, but it is only a moral convention that prevents people from taking advantage of that. As we have seen over the past fifty years, moral conventions are tenuous and ephemeral things.
"As for Emery not caring about other people harming themselves, plenty of products harm people. Weed is not different than cigerates, alchohol, or even fatty food."
Ah, yes, the ATF--alcohol, tobacco, and fat--products that pro-potters repeatedly truck out in defence of their position. Only thing is, not one of them is a psychotropic hallucinogen.
"He sold pornography from his book store I believe."
Just like he sold marijuana seeds from his marijuana seed store? Well, I guess if something is being sold from a store, it can't possibly be illegal.
"He was objecting to absurd laws that restricted free speech."
The printed word is not speech. And most of these books actually contained very few printed words.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-10 5:43:32 PM
“No Shane, those are the consequences of attempting to prevent individuals from entering into a consensual transaction.”
But it is a consensual transaction, all the same.
“[Morality as defined by who?] You really don't get it do you?”
You don't get morality, I get that.
“No one grants us our natural rights, we are born with them.”
That's very poetic, Charles. But the obligation to honour these rights is moral, not legal, and even the obligation itself is a philosophical abstraction.
“You have the right to your morality, but you have no right to violate someone's natural rights to enforce your morality on that person. At this point, I find it absurd to describe to you what a natural right is.”
You should find it absurd to describe it to anyone, because they are philosophical fictions.
“[Still, there aren't too many pro-pot types who are also strong law-and-order types.] Or so you assume.”
So I have observed. Or have you actually convinced yourself that yours is the majority viewpoint?
“If there were strong laws in this country that protected one's natural right to defend oneself, for example, you wouldn't find quite as many drug addicts harassing people on the street.”
This, truthful though it be, is irrelevant to the discussion.
“Question: was there ever a time where drugs were legal in the U.S.? Was there more or less drug abuse in those days as opposed to today?”
Yes, until the early 1900s pretty much everything was legal. And drug abuse was much more common than it was today; up to five percent of the population, according to some estimates. Most of these addictions were to opiates.
“That’s right. He just pulled [the idea] out of his arse. It was called prohibition. During those years, it was only profitable to sell the really hard stuff, so there was less alcohol consumed, but more binging (a pretty dangerous habit). There is no reason to think that it is any different for drugs.”
Actually, alcohol abuse was such a problem in the early 1900s that anti-saloon leagues and temperence movements were gathering steam at about the same time as drugs started being restricted. The difference is that alcohol prohibition was repealed, whereas drugs remained illegal, and until the 1960s, there was little further issue with them.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-10 6:08:22 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.