A ten-second google search produced this well-researched and attributed article which destroys the author's fantasies and fallacies. The graph images wouldn't load for me, but the text makes it clear: cirrhosis rates were at their lowest right before prohibition, and murder rates jumped considerably during prohibition - and murder rates jumped again when the current WoD was escalated.
Does trading victims of cirrhosis for victims of murder make sense in any logical or ethical system? Perhaps some people are confused by the use of the term 'victim' in both cases. To be clear: people that died from cirrhosis slowly killed themselves, most often with ample warnings and opportunities to stop. If I have to explain the difference between this and murder, you should stop reading now and instead immediately seek professional counseling.
There is scant official data on how many people were killed or blinded by unregulated alcohol products, but there's no doubt that it happened far more frequently during prohibition.
In addition, alcohol consumption patterns were changed dramatically by prohibition - hard liquor gained precedence over beer and wine, due to the risk/reward of transporting illegal goods. This pattern is repeated by today's WoD.
There is nothing new or novel or noble or "successful" about a prohibition. A prohibition says, in effect, "You will adhere to this moral standard or we will kill you." Prohibiting an otherwise lawful transaction between consenting adults is simply wrong, regardless of whether you personally like or dislike the transaction. The supurious argument 'well why not remove the prohibition on murder' is fallacious: murder is not consensual. In a prohibition, there is no victim to protect. No one's rights are violated. "Society" is not a victim, "society" is not a partner in the transaction, "society" is nor harmed by the transaction, "society" - an imaginary collective - has no rights. The attempt to justify prohibitions by using "society" in this manner are illogical, and every bit as reprehensible a tactic as politicians hiding their personal ambitions and pet schemes behind the smokescreen of "the chilrun".
Arguments about the costs of alcohol, drug, and/or tobacco users on government-supplied systems such as Medicare or Welfare et al are equally irrelevant. You cannot justify keeping one bad policy or program because of its impact on another bad policy or program. If anything, these are just more reasons to discontinue these policies/programs.
Prohibitions cause crimes beyond the simple violation of the prohibition itself, by unbalancing the supply, demand, and price. Worse, prohibitions get people killed. It's a race to see if tainted products claim more victims in the long run than associated violence - but regardless of the final numbers, there is no winner.
CzarChasm: I’m going to go with the Harvard guy over the Boston University guy who demonstrates that there were successes. It’s interesting how Miron admits that some health outcomes improved (but has to spin his way out of it) and that he only focuses on one type of crime because it interferes with his narrative.
Nice try though. Anarchy is not my cup of tea. Blaming laws for crime is often ludicrous. I’d love to know your position on LSD lollipops for kids though.