NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple topic... why are Alcohol and Tobacco, two very problematic and very addictive and very dangerous subtances legal, while all the other problematic dangerous and addictive drugs out there are illegal?

Don't just give me the "we already tried that, remember the prohibition?" answer.

I am wondering WHY our society refuses to ban these just as well as it banned illicit drugs.

Alcohol has been around for literally thousands of years, so I don't see it going away any time soon. It's not highly addictive though, somewhat addictive yes, highly no.

As for tobacco, I can't say I think that because it's so widespread, the justice system would be flooded with people that got hooked young, or just don't care about their health. Assuming 5% of Americans smoke (I don't think that this is an unrealistic estimate), that would be a potential 12 million people that would be criminals under the law, which the justice system simply can't handle.

Here's the simple answer--and it'll have some holes in it as a result, but it'll deal with the major issues.

It has to do with lobbying groups and political contributions. Once the 18th Amendment was repealed, the alcohol lobby decided to try to ensure that they wouldn't have to deal with the potential for prohibition again, so they became political players. They cleaned up their image and marketed themselves to the right economic class as well, which led to social acceptibility, and they helped convey the use of other "harder" drugs as a social ill while raising public opinion toward alcohol consumption. Now they're such a big industry that they can't reasonably be touched.

Tobacco is much the same story, although they've been losing ground in recent years. There's no easy analog for tobacco to play itself off of as a reasonable alternative. Weed has been co-opted by the alcohol industry as its "we're not that bad" option, and what can tobacco really say? At least we're not crack? They're just stuck, from a pr standpoint.

Because the government is made up of dorks?

...Don't look at me that way, it's true! ;P

Umm..becuase we still have the right to choose to do these things?

The nation has lacked the political will to deal with the millions of addicts we have; it caved in.

It is hypocritical to allow the majority their drugs of choice while denying choice to the minority.

Another consideration is that marijuana is easy to grow and hard to tax.

So, should we A: Make everything Illegal
or B: Make everything Legal
or C: Do nothing about it, it's fine

Alcohol, because it's impossible to enforce and undesirable to try. Alcohol is a key part of our society, and a desirable one, too.

Cigarettes, because of the tobacco companies' generous political contributions.

Personally, I think they should all be legalized and heavily regulated. It would provide money that can be put to social programs, would save lives, and would shoot the majority of organized crime in the face.

Alcohol is a part of many cultures actually. Maybe not so much in the US but in the UK, for example, having a pint down at the local pub is a valued social part of their culture. On the Continent it's even more ingrained with wine being an integral part of community life. I really don't see how you could ban alcohol- it's just too prevalent. The Prohibition in the US shows that people will always find a way to make it and smuggle it into the country. The situation is analogous to America's "War on Drugs". As fast as you crack down on dealers, new sources spring up- frankly, its just throwing money down the drain.

Tobacco is too big to illegalise now and I'm not in favour of banning it. I'm also in favour of legalising pot, taxing it and using the funds to crack down on harder drugs. I don't smoke it myself but its fairly harmless.

Tobacco should also be taxed through the roof (e.g. Singapore does this by increasing the tobacco tax every six months, making costs increase all the time).

Well, this may or not be the reason why they are legal, but regardless, banning something does not work
It didn't work during prohibition, and it's not working now for the other drugs. People don't stop doing something they enjoy just because someone tells them to. If anything, it makes them want it more because it's even more of a rush.
The real question is not "why are we still allowing these two things?" but rather "why are we not allowing these other things?"
Anyway, this country was built on tobacco- it's tradition. And alcohol, I suppose would still be banned if prohibition had worked. They don't dare ban it again because they remember at least that much of history.

On the issue of hard drugs, I can't really say I think they should be legalized. Anything you can die from on the first try should pretty much be banned as far as I'm concerned.

On the issue of marijuana, I think one of the things keeping it from being legalized is the fact that there is no test to find out if you are *currently* under the influence. It takes up to 28 days for it to be completely cleared from your system and for you to not have a positive result on a test. Therefore, if you get pulled over in a car and they test for it, there is no way to know if you are currently under the influence (as a blood alcohol test would show) or if you smoked it a week ago. If they can come up with a better test, there really shouldn't be anything in the way of legalizing it except the old people who banned it as a hippie drug in the first place.