‘Prohibition doesn’t work’ is another meaningless phrase that has been repeated so often that it has now become accepted as an immutable truth. However the U.S. experience with alcohol during the 1920s cannot compare with the way in which street drugs are used in today’s society.
Advocates of legalisation claim that the U.S. experience with alcohol prohibition from 1919 to 1933 proves that drug prohibition does not work. However, the historical analogy is incorrect. Alcohol use had been a socially accepted, legally sanctioned behaviour in most Western societies for centuries.
In the United States before prohibition, alcohol sales were restricted to adults and regulated as to time, place, amount, etc. Alcohol problems among minors were extremely rare and there was no commercial youth-alcohol culture. Thus prohibition removed a previously acceptable adult beverage from the legal market.
Conversely the consumption and sale of street drugs, especially marijuana and hallucinogens expanded predominantly among minors. Proponents of legalisation often claim that prohibition failed to curb alcohol abuse and led to vast increases in crime. They fail however to consider that the law banned "the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors" but it allowed the purchase and consumption of alcohol.
Thus it countenanced, through omission, patronage of the bootlegger. Alcohol use was half-legal, half-illegal – a situation similar to the experimentation with decriminalisation of marijuana. When prohibition was finally lifted it failed to control organised crime. Operations were merely switched to other illegal activities.
Most importantly alcohol consumption declined dramatically during prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5% per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.1% per 1000,000 in 1929. Admission rates to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in1922 to 4.7 in 1928. Arrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined by half between 1916 and 1922 and for the population as a whole the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 to 50 %.
Violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition (homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained fairly constant during prohibition’s fourteen-year law - 1919 to 1933) Organised crime may have become more visible and lurid during prohibition but it existed before and after.
There is no question that to repeal the law prohibiting alcohol in 1933 was the prerogative of a democratic society. However for anyone to claim that Prohibition failed to benefit society or that it was responsible for an increase in crime is patently false.
However pro drug activists who promoted that fallacy are also the ones who have conspired for the past forty years to suppress important clinical and scientific research about the damaging effects of cannabis. Because of their duplicity immeasurable damage has been inflicted on many young Australians and their families. It is an act of bastardry and history will judge them accordingly.
Australians must become better informed so that we do not follow the example of the U.S.
One of the reasons so many American States have voted in favour of removing legal sanctions is because a group of international billionaires, in particular George Soros, have poured millions of dollars into the pro legalisation campaign. George Soros’s most powerful asset is his ownership of large sections of the media and he has used this power to manipulate public opinion to support his point of view. He also owns large sections of the entertainment industry and receives wholehearted support from Ted Turner and other celebrity activists.
After years of journalists using selected data and statistics in these media outlets more than half of Americans now support legalising marijuana compared to 30% in 2000. Soros does not confine himself to the U.S. and his influence is gaining ground in Australia as his minions run around the country telling all who listen that prohibition of street drugs is an infringement of our ‘civil liberties’ and maintenance programs that keep addicts in a state of hopelessness and despair is some peculiar form of “compassion’. According to John Walters former director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy:
“The pro-legalisation movement hasn’t come from a groundswell of the people. A great deal of its funding and fraud has been perpetrated by George Soros and then promoted by celebrities.”
Obviously Americans have forgotten that in the 1970’s eleven States in the U.S. decriminalised marijuana but eventually each State rescinded the decision due to increasing social problems. However there is no guarantee that this will happen again - greed is a great incentive to promote an addiction industry. And of course the more young people who become addicted to marijuana the greater the profits. So if the pro drug activists keep to their usual modus operandi:
‘If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it.’
they will no doubt succeed in the States. However Australia is not the United States and hopefully our politicians are a little more savvy.