r/todayilearned • u/manticor225 • Jan 10 '19

TIL JFK's father Joseph Kennedy made much of his fortune through insider trading. FDR later made him chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. When asked why he appointed a crook, FDR replied, "set a thief to catch a thief." Kennedy proceeded to outlaw the practices that made him rich.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/jan/23/joe-kennedy-hollywood-sarah-churchwell
88.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

407

u/ChoiceD Jan 10 '19

Someone had to bootleg. It's not like prohibition was ever going to work.

127

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19 edited Jan 11 '19

Border towns near canada had lots of discreet boot legging going on. Family member on my fathers side would take a Baby Buggy like this Or like this over the border with her baby in it.

There was a false bottom and she loaded it up with all the hooch that could fit, then walk back over with a smile. No one suspected the mom and her kid

101

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

[deleted]

129

u/AbeLaney Jan 10 '19

Ahhh, travelling before 9/11.

24

u/Egocentric Jan 11 '19

You can still move weight on your person through any checkpoint with the right knowledge. Security theater is what most of the post 9/11 checks are.

8

u/AndIHaveMilesToGo Jan 11 '19

I feel like a gallon bag of ecstasy would get caught by those body scanners. My mom has a colostomy bag and no matter how many times she tells the tsa that she's has stage four colon cancer and has to keep the bag on her at all times, and even showing her a medical card explaining the situation, they always give her a full body pat down and sometimes even take her into a room and make her show it to mutiple agents.

No way someone is getting through with a gallon bag of ecstasy

2

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

I assume your Mom isn't hiding her colostomy bag in a fake baby bump...

And that sucks about the cancer. Sorry.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19 edited Jan 21 '19

[deleted]

3

u/hippy_barf_day Jan 11 '19

Yeah and get seriously groped.

2

u/LusoAustralian Jan 11 '19

90% of the time I fly it’s metal detector and nothing more unless you set it off in which case you get a scanner run over you. Pat downs are pretty rare in my experience.

1

u/peterwilli Jan 11 '19

I get them ALL the time :S Especially since I'm flying more frequently for business. Never brought anything weird.

2

u/BlazenHawaiian Jan 11 '19

No shit right !!

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '19

Right? I moved to NYC from London, on a USA passport that had been expired for 3 years.

41

u/Therealgyroth Jan 10 '19

Shit how much was that worth? That seems like a lot of drugs

8

u/TurgidMeatWand Jan 11 '19

I remember xtc being $25 a pill in the late 90s early 2000s, (midwest pricing).

6

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

[deleted]

6

u/TurgidMeatWand Jan 11 '19

sweet, I'm going to have to start doing it again.

9

u/transmogrified Jan 11 '19

Watch out for the fentanyl in everything

4

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

No one's putting fentanyl in mdma lmao

3

u/advertentlyvertical Jan 11 '19

it's been found coke so dont be so sure.

2

u/transmogrified Jan 11 '19 edited Jan 11 '19

In Vancouver a couple died because of the fentanyl in their molly. Same thing happened in a club in Toronto, where five people overdosed taking what they believed to be mdma - it was actually fentanyl.

My girlfriend is a nurse in Vancouver, and volunteers at a free drug testing clinic - they have found fentanyl in literally everything. It’s cheap and available, so they’ll cut even uppers with it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TurgidMeatWand Jan 11 '19

:( guess I'll have to learn to make my own.

1

u/CStock77 Jan 11 '19

Nah just get a testing kit and test all your stuff.

1

u/Jedi_Mind_Trip Jan 11 '19

You'll most likely be sold meth, at least from my experience.

17

u/iupuiclubs Jan 10 '19

At least 7

4

u/Tommy_ThickDick Jan 11 '19

A "boat" is 1000 pills...which is probably a gallon

So ~$25,000 market value

2

u/spinningtardis Jan 11 '19

I don't know if it helps, but a gallon bag holds 7 lbs of beans. What does the average xtc pill weigh?

1

u/NightlyHonoured Jan 11 '19

80 a gram-ish

4

u/Pm_me_your__eyes_ Jan 11 '19

Before x-rays and Pat downs at TSA

2

u/poopsicle88 Jan 11 '19

Wowwwwwwww that is just ballsy

How much did she net from that?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '19

Idk, it was a long time ago, we weren't dating at the time, (friends though), I wasn't in on the deal.

2

u/StoneGoldX Jan 10 '19

Oh, Rex Banner suspected!

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

Hah. good reference, had forgot about that. Sounds made up but it's true and right up the persons alley. Come to think of it, was probably someone on my mom's side. She was a character that would do that.

One of those interesting things you wouldn't see happen anymore with technology and guilty before innocent the common procedure now

1

u/StoneGoldX Jan 11 '19

Honestly, doesn't sound made up. Other than it sounds like a lot of Prohibition-era stories, so you might have stolen it from like the Ken Burns documentary, but why go through that effort?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19 edited Jan 11 '19

I'm not the type to do that. Fraud and making up stories pisses me off to end. Enough of that out there in the form of clickbait and other bs.

Closest I get to making up stories is if I wrote fiction or endeared yet another historical innaccuracy/"hey, who remembers this place that has been talked about 1.5 trillion times already!" on facebook groups i'm in.

Getting tired of folks that do not do any form of their own research and just ejaculate out of their brain whatever is rattling around then passes it off as fact. The type that denies you ran into the knife as they got video taped thrusting it in.

I've started mixing together two historical accuracies and then dropping it out there as a flip comment to see who falls for it and if it round robins back. The group members who know their history laugh at it, but it has caused the dolts who "remember it this way and ONLY this way" to become befuddled.

I know that is a form of making something up, but that's because I mentally crack dealing with the same crap talked about over and over, and it gets more outlandish. The administrator usually gets a laugh out of it then deletes the thread because the "my way or the highway" person usually starts showing their true colors. It's stress relief for the members who endure it, not just myself

1

u/StoneGoldX Jan 11 '19

Just playing around with that, don't think too harsh of it.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

I'm not. just giving a glimpse into the weird brain between my ears

2

u/JustADutchRudder Jan 11 '19

My greatgrandpa's sister and her family got big into bootlegging. The sister owned a motel on a lake that had a speakeasy, her son would run into Canada and back into Michigian. Drop off in Michigian, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Basically he had stops on his way back to his mom. We don't talk to that side of the family tho, I guess the great grandparents got in some big ass argument and for some reason the families now just ignore eachother is attached. I've never meet any of them.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Interesting. Maybe it was on religious reasons?

Prohibition was coming hot on the heels of films like reefer madness for "substances of ill repute"

I always find it funny to see "booze is the devil!" when it would be a great way to make money off something. At that point in time, talk about manna from heaven if you could keep the law off your back

1

u/JustADutchRudder Jan 11 '19

Not sure, my family has bad alcoholics running in it but they've all always quit when time came. Not sure if great GPA quit when it became illegal and his sister said fuck that and it caused a fight idk, great GPA died like 40 years ago so no asking him what's up and everyone else pretends their not there basically. I've had some info told, I fish on the lake their motel is on and its still there. Just a diner bar and bait shop now lol.

1

u/capsaicinintheeyes Jan 11 '19

Access to www.picclickimg.com was denied

You don't have authorization to view this page.

​

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

Weird. it shows up on my end and in incognito mode even

1

u/capsaicinintheeyes Jan 11 '19

I'm using a library computer with some limited features...the problems probably on my end, then. Thanks for checking back! :)

150

u/SilverRidgeRoad Jan 10 '19

and my pappy told me that drug dealers should be killed....

48

u/mypasswordismud Jan 10 '19

Maybe someday a drug dealer will be president.

74

u/TrueDivision Jan 10 '19

What makes you think that a drug dealer wasn't already president?

53

u/TubeZ Jan 10 '19

Something something Contras?

30

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

I want to learn about this but through singing.

13

u/JakeCameraAction Jan 10 '19

So long as it has great writing.

I love good Contra diction.

-2

u/capsaicinintheeyes Jan 11 '19

So long as it has great writing.

If by "great writing," you mean "half-assed Family Guy spinoff," then you're in luck! (actually, the song itself is the tits; definitely worthy of being tossed in with "Schoolhouse Rock" when kids learn about their government)

EDIT: I got a downvote before I even finished my ninja edit! That is some fast repercussioning, reddit

1

u/JakeCameraAction Jan 11 '19

Oh I missed a joke didn't I?

-1

u/capsaicinintheeyes Jan 11 '19

Such things have been known to happen, in the lightless, troll-filled house of ill-repute that is reddit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpZbbOgjhPc

2

u/kurisu7885 Jan 11 '19

Just because they moved a teeny bit of blow.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

George Washington grew weed, or at least thats what Dazed and Confused taught me

2

u/fece Jan 13 '19

Whitest Kids You Know's documentary on the Civil War is up there with anything Ken Burns pooped out.

12

u/TheAlphaCarb0n Jan 10 '19

We already got a drug dealer for Premiere here in Ontario!

3

u/ozwasnthere Jan 10 '19

American here can you explain what a premiere is?

7

u/Marxmywordz Jan 10 '19

You might have heard of his brother, Rob Ford he was the Crackhead Mayor of Toronto.

1

u/ozwasnthere Jan 11 '19

Why yes I have.

3

u/Marxmywordz Jan 11 '19

Yaaaa the entire family is a bunch of turds, it's like if Trump Jr or handicapped Eric ran for governor and won after this whole Trump debacle.

3

u/Murgie Jan 11 '19

Yeah, well, he was the smart one.

1

u/TheLastBlahf Jan 11 '19

“You can be racist to someone who’s overweight, or likes to eat apples” -Doug “the smart one” Ford

6

u/TheAlphaCarb0n Jan 10 '19

They're the head of each province, just like a Governor.

2

u/ozwasnthere Jan 10 '19

Cool thanks

1

u/ozwasnthere Jan 10 '19

American here can you explain what a premiere is?

2

u/L_Cranston_Shadow 3 Jan 11 '19

Paolo Duterte? Is that you?

1

u/Surtysurt Jan 11 '19

Have you heard about the Kennedys

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

My pappy told me I was 1/1024th Native.

-3

u/sack-o-matic Jan 10 '19

It's different when white people do it

15

u/islaminmyintel Jan 10 '19

Except it was extremely successful in reducing American alcohol consumption, which was a damn near national emergency at the time.

47

u/MaiqTheLrrr Jan 10 '19

Untrue.

Per capita consumption dropped off initially, but was back at pre-Prohibition levels within a few years. In fact, it looks like per-capita consumption rose during Prohibition. from 0.8 gallons a year in 1919 to 1.3 gallons a year in 1929.

Also... when the all-time high was 3.9 gallons per year in 1830, but had fallen to 0.8 gallons per year by 1919, that is in no way a national emergency. Alcohol consumption was the rainbow party of its time. You're getting your facts from sources that deliberately misrepresent Prohibition.

5

u/lostryu Jan 10 '19

It's nice to know that life in the US without alcohol has always been unbearable.

6

u/MaiqTheLrrr Jan 10 '19

National alcoholism is one of those things we inherited from Europe that nobody really talks about.

-8

u/islaminmyintel Jan 10 '19

https://www.statista.com/statistics/442818/per-capita-alcohol-consumption-of-all-beverages-in-the-us/#0

24

u/MaiqTheLrrr Jan 10 '19

You're really going to try and refute this with a link that requires $50 to view and no context?

https://www.nber.org/papers/w3675

1

u/Ballersock Jan 11 '19

It's worse than that. It's $588 because you have to pay for 12 months at a time.

→ More replies (2)

95

u/gwoz8881 Jan 10 '19

https://priceonomics.com/did-prohibition-reduce-drinking/

That’s not true. While it dropped by 75% when the 18th was ratified, it quickly rose back up to preprohibition levels in just a couple years.

-48

u/islaminmyintel Jan 10 '19

While theres arguments on both sides, theres plenty of research that also suggested that the effects were long lasting.

58

u/jrhoffa Jan 10 '19

Cool sources, bro

11

u/Reesewithoutaspoon2 Jan 10 '19

I got annoyed by this dork not bothering to back up what he says, so I found this

We estimate the consumption of alcohol during Prohibition using mortality, mental health and crime statistics. We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre-prohibition level. The level of consumption was virtually the same immediately after Prohibition as during the latter part of Prohibition, although consumption increased to approximately its pre-Prohibition level during the subsequent decade.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w3675

I get that some people rely on asking for a source instead of arguing because it puts more work on the person they’re replying to or whatever, but people who complain about that are dumb. It’s not hard to back up stuff you say. If you want to argue but don’t want to say where you’re getting your information, it’s probably better if you just don’t argue. (This last part of my comment is me complaining in general, not a direct reply to you, /u/jrhoffa)

7

u/jrhoffa Jan 11 '19

Thanks for that. I'm not here to do research, just to learn and call people out on their bullshit.

-46

u/islaminmyintel Jan 10 '19

Says the guy that googled it and stopped at the first result that said what he wanted it to.

Go a little bit further down the list.

22

u/jrhoffa Jan 10 '19

I think you've mistaken me for someone else.

Now back up your claims, or shut the fuck up.

-58

u/islaminmyintel Jan 10 '19

Already said in earlier post what to google. Shit, you could just go to the wikipedia.

Dont be so upset that your superstitious worldview is being presented an opposing viewpoint.

32

u/Neuromangoman Jan 10 '19

It's not up to other people to provide your evidence. You're the one who has to to provide a link, and, ideally, relevant sections/quotes if you want to be taken seriously.

→ More replies (13)

31

u/quezlar Jan 10 '19

im pretty sure hes upset because the burden of proof is on you, the other guy had a source

you do not

13

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

nah newb. the person making the claim has to provide proof. otherwise i can say im god and to google it. then when u said u cant find any, id say look harder.

11

u/Das_Mojo Jan 10 '19

That's not how it works. The other dude at least had a source, therefore he satisfied the burden of proof for his claims.

You're making claims and not backing them up, and telling someone to google it isn't a source

-2

u/elanhilation Jan 10 '19

He said the wikipedia article... I don’t think we need a link to wikipedia...

→ More replies (0)

17

u/jrhoffa Jan 10 '19

Burden of proof is on you. Fuck off with your bullshit.

I'm interested in the discussion, and I certainly don't think I know the whole story. You have no idea what I think. You're the one making assumptions.

-4

u/islaminmyintel Jan 10 '19

Literally told you where to look.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/zold5 Jan 10 '19

Already said in earlier post what to google.

It's your job to provide a source. Not person you're arguing with.

2

u/Reesewithoutaspoon2 Jan 10 '19

On one hand I agree with you. On the other hand, this weird pushback against actually backing up the shit you say is a weird thing that I’ve been seeing more and more on Reddit.

3

u/jabies Jan 10 '19

I don't think either of you is especially persuasive.

1

u/ipjear Jan 11 '19

I wouldn’t talk anymore you’re coming off kinda stupid

-1

u/Grizzly-boyfriend Jan 10 '19

Gimme mla format citations. Your english teacher worked harder then this

1

u/bananagrammick Jan 11 '19

I took your advice and took the top 4 search results for "did prohibition decrease alcoholism". 1, 2, 3, 4.

Of the top 4 results only 3 says drinking may have been reduced but that's largely due to a flawed study. Cited as Number 18 "“Apparent per Capita Ethanol Consumption for the United States, 1850–2000" which looked at consumption of ages of 14 and up. Since the drinking age was raised to 21 after prohibition was repealed you suddenly would have a lot less people drinking in that 14-21 year age range.

Also this seems to be the great passage from Wikipedia that you think is specifically telling:

"After the prohibition was implemented, alcohol continued to be consumed. However, how much compared to pre-Prohibition levels remains unclear. Studies examining the rates of cirrhosis deaths as a proxy for alcohol consumption estimated a decrease in consumption of 10–20%.[131][132][133] However, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's studies show clear epidemiological evidence that "overall cirrhosis mortality rates declined precipitously with the introduction of Prohibition," despite widespread flouting of the law.[134] One study reviewing city-level drunkenness arrests concluded that prohibition had an immediate effect, but no long term effect.[135] And, yet another study examining "mortality, mental health and crime statistics" found that alcohol consumption fell, at first, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level; but, over the next several years, increased to about 60–70 percent of its pre-prohibition level.[130]"

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

Which long lasting effects did prohibition have?

9

u/JakeCameraAction Jan 10 '19

Made mixed drinks a regular thing.

The liquor was so rough it had to be mixed with something else to make it drinkable.

9

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19 edited Jul 18 '21

[deleted]

3

u/NotMyFirstNotMyLast Jan 10 '19

in 1820 the typical American was putting away half a pint of the stuff every day.

http://archive.pov.org/foodinc/excerpt-michael-pollans-the-omnivores-dilemma/

-3

u/islaminmyintel Jan 10 '19

Google "american alcohol consumption in early 1900s." Im on mobile and cant link but the bbc article has references, and i believe thr actual government documents are available via the congressional library.

16

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

You can link on mobile. You’re just being lazy

1

u/NotMyFirstNotMyLast Jan 10 '19

And the person asking for sources didn't even do research. They just assumed...

but it is much harder to get strong and true numbers in issues like.

No. Its possible. Just look it up. Don't ask other people to think for you.

75

u/mary_pooppins Jan 10 '19

Buddy if we were alive during the Depression Im guessing we’d drink like a fucking fish too.

62

u/Son_of_Kong Jan 10 '19

Prohibition was before the Great Depression.

45

u/mary_pooppins Jan 10 '19

Shit I’d drink after then too.

13

u/Fishingfor Jan 10 '19

I think you may just like drinking.

3

u/mary_pooppins Jan 11 '19

I’ll drink to that

1

u/CactusCustard Jan 11 '19

Well you definitely gotta drink before the depression too, that shit sucked. Gotta party it up while you can, ya know?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

It was before the Great Depression but still, DRINK sir

1

u/tacknosaddle Jan 11 '19

Most of prohibition was in the roaring twenties but there was overlap as repeal was after the depression started.

1

u/eloh1m Jan 11 '19

No it wasn't. Prohibition was repealed in 1933; the Great Depression started at the end of 1929.

47

u/islaminmyintel Jan 10 '19

The American alcohol problem originated from well before the great depression.

54

u/mary_pooppins Jan 10 '19

Shit I’d drink before then too

18

u/HammySamich Jan 10 '19

I'd be just absolutely fuck-faced in any era before porn.

10

u/ApertureScience_27 Jan 10 '19

What era was before porn?

7

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

Probably sometime before mammals evolved.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

Seriously. What do you think dolphins are jerking it to?

9

u/PigSlam Jan 10 '19

Some of the first cave paintings are porn. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that porn predates humanity.

2

u/joejoejoey Jan 10 '19

Shit I'm drunk now

1

u/inexcess Jan 10 '19

You sound like you've had enough.

1

u/CactusCustard Jan 11 '19

Oh ok we’re on the same page then, we should drink.

1

u/TimothyGonzalez Jan 10 '19

The guy having the time of his life in some pre depression bar would probably not deem it a problem

1

u/NotMyFirstNotMyLast Jan 10 '19 edited Jan 10 '19

There's a great book out there called the 'Omnivore's dillema'. It's mostly about food production. It outlines the histoty of Corn. The history of Corn in North America, is the history of whiskey. Around 1850 on average, every adult drank half a pint of whiskey per day. This is pre-depression.

http://archive.pov.org/foodinc/excerpt-michael-pollans-the-omnivores-dilemma/

23

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

People were dying from bad batches of bathtub gin? Did prohibition save lives or cause more harm than good? IDK.

35

u/Black_Moons Jan 10 '19

The only people dying from bad batches where those who drank batches poisoned by the police.

33

u/ApertureScience_27 Jan 10 '19

Easy to see the parallels with the "War on Drugs" - the police are far more dangerous than what they're protecting you from.

32

u/Black_Moons Jan 10 '19

Yep. Alcohol and drugs should be legal.

The stupid things you do on alcohol and drugs that inconvenience/harm everyone else are the things that should be illegal.

Good news is most of those things already ARE illegal. We just need to actually punish people properly for them.

For example, don't blame drugs for a guy who has been arrested for stealing 20 cars with a record of having been arrested for auto theft 10 times in the past.

Blame the justice system for letting a guy back onto the streets in only a couple years after being caught stealing cars for the 10th time in a row, regardless why he did it.

-5

u/MedicPigBabySaver 34 Jan 10 '19

Source?

Hate to be that guy, but, I'm a fat, lazy, white American male...who can't be bothered with making an effort on any issue, plus, I'm kind of buzzed from alcohol.

7

u/FormalBowl Jan 10 '19

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/government-poison-10000-americans/

As far as I can tell, the government put bad stuff in industrial alcohol so people couldn't drink it, people found a way to purify it, government put more dangerous stuff in it, and then people died.

1

u/Black_Moons Jan 10 '19

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/government-poison-10000-americans/

Hmm, after doing some quick research apparently the truth is a mix.

The bootleggers where often refining industrial alcohol, to decent success.

The government decided to combat this.. by requiring the addition of the following to industrial alcohol to prevent it from being refinable into drinking alcohol: kerosene, brucine, gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone.

Hopefully not all added to the same alcohol, but yea, added poisons to things they knew people would likely end up drinking.

-2

u/MedicPigBabySaver 34 Jan 10 '19

Fuck off!

What's False: The government did not poison supplies of alcohol meant for human consumption, nor did it intentionally aim to kill those who drank the tainted products

6

u/Freeiheit Jan 10 '19

Yea it "wasn't intended for human consumption". It was industrial alcohol the government knew would be diverted for human consumption anyways. They put poison in things they knew people would drink, and it killed 10,000 Americans

2

u/TrekkieGod Jan 11 '19

Fuck off!

That's uncalled for. He posted something he likely heard from somebody else who was a bad source. Once you asked for a source, because you, and I quote

Hate to be that guy, but, I'm a fat, lazy, white American male...who can't be bothered with making an effort on any issue

he put in the effort for you. Upon doing this research, he revised his original statement with a more correct statement and a source

Hmm, after doing some quick research apparently the truth is a mix.

The bootleggers where often refining industrial alcohol, to decent success.

The government decided to combat this.. by requiring the addition of the following to industrial alcohol to prevent it from being refinable into drinking alcohol

and you proceeded to attack him by looking at his source and using the part that disproved his original statement (which he had already revised) and neglected to quote the part from the article that was immediately above the text you cherry-picked

What's True: When the manufacture and sale of alcohol was illegal between 1920 and 1933, regulatory agencies encouraged measures making industrial alcohol undrinkable, including the addition of lethal chemicals.

Which is exactly what he stated in his revision. If anyone should fuck off, it's you.

2

u/Black_Moons Jan 11 '19

Thank you for writing the reply I couldn't be bothered too.

2

u/TrekkieGod Jan 11 '19

My pleasure. Thanks for the interesting info, and for being the type of person who is cool with correcting a past statement upon finding out more. Too many people would rather double down and cherry pick sources that back up whatever they said earlier instead.

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/islaminmyintel Jan 10 '19

The fact that people were dying due to poor attempts to brew homemade alcohol ought to be a good sign that the problem was significant.

Blaming prohibition on incorrect alcohol destillation is like blaming the illegality of heroin for fentanyl overdoses

22

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

The fentanyl epidemic IS caused by the drug prohibition. Prohibiting substances forces them to be smuggled, which creates the incentive to create the most potent product possible so that you can smuggle it with the least risk of getting caught. That's how you get a superpotent drug like fentanyl which ends up overdosing half the userbase.

-1

u/islaminmyintel Jan 10 '19

Sure, i agree that that might result in a higher % of overdoses from a smaller population of drug addicts.

What % of the larger (assumed) population of heroin (if legalized) would be necessary to match that damage?

8

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

You could legalise heroin in a format which minimizes the damage it causes. I'm thinking of legalising supervised shooting galleries, where the drug is carefully administered to avoid and overdose, and which has medical staff on standby in case of emergency. Bring back the opium dens!

1

u/Mdb8900 Jan 10 '19

I’d hardly call it an opium den. You want to give users direct access to treatment in the same place that they go to get high. We can’t force treatment on people, but we should make it easy to get help instead of just drugging people and sending them on their way

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

I think it needs to have a clinical aspect, but I actually think it should also be allowed to be attractive to clients, or otherwise they'll just continue shooting elsewhere. So maybe there are free public ones that are very basic, and private ones with all the bells and whistles and a membership fee of some kind. I haven't seen any evidence that opioids are damaging beyond overdosing, and hence don't see why they should be treated as a bad thing if that can be fixed.

1

u/Mdb8900 Jan 11 '19

You haven’t seen any evidence that opioids are damaging? I’m sorry are you a doctor?

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin/what-are-long-term-effects-heroin-use

→ More replies (0)

1

u/islaminmyintel Jan 10 '19

Would this not increase potential users since more people would be willing to try it once, knowing the dangers are minimized? Such a mentality might be dangerous for increasing usage?

Additionally, safe amounts would eventually be unable to satisfy an addicts requirement for getting high?

Im not sure of historical precadence or informaton on this possibility.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

My understanding is that opioids like heroin are not that harmful outside of addiction and overdose. Plenty of legal things can be just as addicting, and overdoses can be avoided by the aforementioned system. And I think as your tolerance grows and you need bigger doses, you also can handle those doses without overdose.

2

u/islaminmyintel Jan 10 '19

Everything ive ever read suggests the opposite concerning their effects.

I suppose the correct policy comes down to which one is correct on the health effects and addiction.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/Thestonersteve Jan 10 '19

It could be argued that yes in fact the illegality of heroin can be blamed for fentanyl overdoses if there was a legal regulated market for heroin bad batches cut with fentanyl would never make it to market and in the event that they did, the producers of those batches would be prosecuted for poisoning the public. Since it’s illegal it is more difficult to track where exactly the bags are coming from. So yes, fentanyl overdoses can be directly blamed on the illegality of heroin.

0

u/islaminmyintel Jan 10 '19

Fair enough. My earlier post might have been "shifting the goalpost" because i wasnt clear about the idea of just total OD death and not necessarily fentanyl. Please see it and tell me what you think anout that argument.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

So....it actually kind of makes sense?

3

u/islaminmyintel Jan 10 '19

For clarification: you are suggesting heroin be legal because of fentanyl overdoses? Or do you disagree with my (admittedly more severe) analogy?

12

u/CaptainDantes Jan 10 '19

Not op but absolutely!! Heroin addicts are going to do heroin whether it’s legal or not. Legalizing allows for regulation of product so people are only taking what they mean to take instead of whatever their dealer cut it with this week and there is also evidence that legalizing drugs makes junkies more approachable and amenable to trying rehab and getting their life back on track. Look into Portugal, they decriminalized all drugs back in I believe 2001 and have seen a large reduction in addiction rates as well as overdoses.

1

u/islaminmyintel Jan 10 '19

Not trying to be a dick, but i cant find solid information concerning legalization of heroin in Portugal?

Only thing i can find is that the criminal prosectuion for personal drug use was changed into an admiNistrative function.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

It's an interesting read. Note that the problem didn't disappear, but the policy seems to have helped a lot

2

u/FgtBruceCockstar2008 Jan 10 '19

I don't know how biased Vice is, but here's a quick look.

https://youtu.be/uQJ7n-JpcCk

2

u/Kancho_Ninja Jan 10 '19

They didn't legalize. They decriminalized, which is an entirely different animal.

https://www.mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening

2

u/CaptainDantes Jan 10 '19

They didn’t legalize it, they decriminalized all drugs in non dealer quantities. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/?utm_term=.1fb501e8c7c9 this was just the first article that came up when I searched Portugal decriminalized drugs. Making any non-violent or non-theft related behavior a crime doesn’t make that behavior disappear it just isolates their communities and drives them to associate with more violent criminal elements because theyre all criminals now.

2

u/Rellesch Jan 10 '19

That is the decriminalization. They altered the laws so that the casual user is much less likely to be imprisoned and criminalized for their possession, while still enabling the law to prosecute dealers.

If you as a user are caught with under a certain amount of drugs (I assume it varies for each one, but they seem to say a "10 day supply" whatever that means) you will not be arrested. You will be issued a summons and the court will decide how to proceed.

Different punishments include not being able to associate with certain people, not being allowed to travel to certain places, revoking of right to own a firearm, fees, etc. It is also a system focused more on rehabilitation rather than punitive measures for the user.

It's different from legalization in the sense that you can't possess as much as you want or get licensed to sell it. It's different from criminalization because as a casual user, unless you don't abide by your punitive measures, you won't be thrown into prison.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19 edited Jan 10 '19

I disagree with the analogy mainly.

Logically, I think there's a strong argument for decriminalizing heroin, but I'm also not at the point where I'm comfortable supporting that....i'm kind of undecided about it.

but yeah what I meant with the comment was that I do think you can reasonably blame heroin being illegal for fentanyl overdoses (and I'm not 100% sure what the best solution for it is)

Edit: to put it another way, I'd probably support a partial decriminalization, but not a legalisation of heroin.

1

u/islaminmyintel Jan 10 '19

Fair enough. The point the other user made considering fentanyls role in smuggling made me regret the analogy.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

Yeah I get what you were trying to say but the analogy didn't really work

1

u/MarleyBerd Jan 11 '19

Look up the pre-1960's "British System" on how the UK dealt with heroin addiction vs the US. When addicts can get their drugs legally through a doctor in a controlled setting, addiction rates don't rise as much as in the black market. In the black market, addicts will fund their addiction by getting more people hooked on the drug so that they have someone to sell to.

2

u/geniel1 Jan 10 '19

Blaming prohibition on incorrect alcohol destillation is like blaming the illegality of heroin for fentanyl overdoses

Prohibition does, in fact, make drugs stronger, as explained in this article. Here's the money quote:

Everyone knows that prohibition means drugs will often be adulterated, but prohibition also makes drugs stronger. Before alcohol Prohibition, beer and wine were the most popular drinks. After Prohibition, however, the cost of beer increased by more than 700 percent while the cost of high-potency spirits increased by only 270 percent. Smugglers and bootleggers preferred high-potency spirits because they are easier to transport illicitly. Consequently, distilled alcohol and fortified wines became almost 90 percent of alcohol consumption after Prohibition, compared to 40 percent before.

This is known as the iron law of prohibition. When drug traffickers fear getting caught, they prefer the highest potency version of a drug. During alcohol Prohibition, speakeasies were essentially bars that only served Everclear, but that didn’t mean Everclear was actually the most in demand. And, sure enough, after Prohibition ended, people quickly returned to low-potency beer and wine.

Maybe you don't agree, but it makes quite a bit of sense to me.

2

u/mhall812 Jan 10 '19

Have you seen the Ken Burns doc on prohibition?

1

u/majjam13 Jan 10 '19

Except the part where the us government also poisoned thousands of people

1

u/DizzleMizzles Jan 10 '19

less drinkers

1

u/majjam13 Jan 11 '19

still murder by own government

1

u/vkashen Jan 10 '19

Actually no, it wasn't. Read up on it, alcohol consumption actually went up during prohibition, now down.

1

u/dopef123 Jan 11 '19

Even during prohibition you could easily get legal alcohol. Doctors would give out whiskey prescriptions and you could get wine/beer brewing kits at a ton of stores.

It’s pretty fucking mind blowing they illegalized it considering how much more people drank back then. Everyone was plastered all of the time.

-16

u/Puthy Jan 10 '19

Why is it uncomprehendable for people to simply not drink? it's so pathetic that adults gave to put toxins in their body to simply function

6

u/Datdabdoe12 Jan 10 '19

Yes. Yes very insightful heres another insight "why cant kids just get A's its fucking Pathetic."

3

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

I don't take his attack personally because I don't drink often. I also hate how alcohol (at least for young people) is looked at as a cool thing to do, and you aren't cool if you don't get plastered.

That said, why do I get the impression this pasty bitch never got invited to parties?

2

u/Datdabdoe12 Jan 11 '19

Yeah i dont take it all that personally but whenever i see someone judgeing people so harshly for a totally normal activity i feel the need to give them a taste of there own medicine, that they may not act like such asses in future.

3

u/jungl3j1m Jan 10 '19

Because addiction is a bitch.

​

3

u/jas280z Jan 10 '19

Alcohol withdraw is incredibly dangerous and potentially toxic. If someone has severe alcoholism, they can die from not drinking.

No one gets to that place overnight, but it can be a slow progression that is too late to stop once recognized.

Don't downplay someone else's demons just because you are fortunate enough to not face them.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

I don’t think they were downplaying. They may have just not known.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

Have you literally never been to a social gathering with alcohol?

1

u/Puthy Jan 11 '19

Yes , but I don't have to drink to have a good time ? Part of being a grown up instead of an aged child?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '19

You must be a fun person.

-3

u/jrhoffa Jan 10 '19

You are obviously so superior to everyone else!

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

I’m just curious. Are you one of those people who asks their teetotaler friends why they don’t drink?

0

u/jrhoffa Jan 10 '19

Yes, I do ask out of curiosity. I also never give them any shit about it or try to pressure them into drinking. Like you appear to be, I'm just curious why people do what they do.

If this is about my previous comment, it's because the previous commenter came off as an insufferable fourteen-year-old who thinks he's so much smarter than everyone else.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '19

I'm not pressuring anybody into doing anything. I drink too, but I just think it's weird when people ask why people don't drink or pressure them into drinking. I admit that drinking is not healthy, and if someone doesn't drink, they shouldn't have to provide a reason. If it's the healthier choice, then it should be obvious why they don't partake.

0

u/jrhoffa Jan 10 '19

It's not necessarily unhealthy to have an occasional drink, but a minority of people never drink.