• xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    My argument is that since illegal drugs have significantly fewer users, prohibition does reduce usage.

    • papalonian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That logic doesn’t flow, though. You need to compare number of current illegal users vs number of users before it was illegal.

      Have you heard of the US prohibition on alcohol? It’s a pretty famous counterexample to your argument showing that it absolutely does not reduce usage.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The same number of people, as a percentage, smoke marijuana as smoke cigarettes. Marijuana use is federally illegal and illegal in most states.

      So no, it really doesn’t reduce usage. Price and perceived risk are the two factors that reduce usage the most.

      • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know about the USA, but I see tobacco smokers every day and very rarely see marijuana smokers.

            • papalonian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              When the government makes something illegal, they don’t do it in hopes of millions of people doing it anyways in private.

              • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Maybe not for other laws, but it makes sense for drugs. The important thing is that people should have the right to breathe non-poisonous air, and forcing smokers to hide their smoking achieves that.

                • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This ban is on the sale of menthol infused cigarettes. It wouldn’t criminalize smoking menthols and there’s plenty of other ways to infuse cigarettes with menthol or buy a synthetic alternative.

                  If your point is at all that this prohibition would in any way, shape, or form help fulfill that goal, that is incorrect.

                  • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    If you read the comment chain, we’ve been talking about drug prohibition in general, not this specific ban.